Article on new Trump's DOE appointment Eric Wright and his positions on energy use.
https://sourcenm.com/2025/02/
Wednesday, February 26, 2025
U.S. Energy Secretary Wright tours New Mexico national labs
NRC Begins Special Inspection at Hope Creek Nuclear Power Plant
Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release
No: I-25-001 February 25, 2025
CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330
NRC Begins Special Inspection at Hope Creek Nuclear Power Plant
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has launched a special inspection at the Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station to review the circumstances of the repeated inoperability of one of the plant’s emergency diesel generators. The plant is operated by PSEG Nuclear, LLC.
Plant operators declared one of four emergency diesel generators inoperable on February 20 when water was detected in the lube oil system after the diesel was run following planned maintenance. A similar event occurred on January 31 and PSEG took steps to address the issue at that time.
The NRC determined a special inspection was warranted because this is a repeat issue. Emergency diesel generators are important because they provide backup power to safety equipment when power from the electrical grid is not available.
“While this did not affect safe plant operation, an independent review of the issue by the regulator is warranted given the repetitive inoperability of a safety-related system,” said Region I Administrator Andrea Kock. “Our inspectors will evaluate PSEG’s response, its work to find the cause, and actions the company is taking to ensure the equipment issues are corrected.”
Once the inspection is completed, NRC inspectors will document their findings in a publicly available inspection report, which will be distributed electronically to listserv subscribers and available on the NRC website.
The plant is in Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey.
"Constellation and Other Nuclear Stocks Live and Die on AI News Now. It Is a Problem."
Constellation and Other Nuclear Stocks Live and Die on AI News Now. It Is a Problem.
By Avi Salzman
Feb 24, 2025 1:52 pm EST
In this article
Nuclear energy stocks tumbled on Monday, continuing a downswing that started on Friday. The stocks’ fortunes are closely tied to growth in artificial intelligence, and there’s news that the demand for power from one big tech player may not be as high as expected.
Two reports from analysts at TD Securities released on Friday and Monday said Microsoft
-1.03% canceled some data center leases, amounting to a couple of hundred megawatts—or enough to power 150,000 or so homes. The report on Monday said that Microsoft’s spending is being supplanted by other players like Oracle
The mere hint that a big player is pulling back was enough to rattle the market. It’s similar to what happened to these stocks when Chinese AI company DeepSeek suggested that tech firms can make AI products that use less power.
Microsoft, in a statement to Barron’s, played down reports of a pullback, saying that while it sometimes makes spending adjustments, it’s still on track to spend over $80 billion this fiscal year on infrastructure “as we continue to grow at a record pace to meet customer demand.
“While we may strategically pace or adjust our infrastructure in some areas, we will continue to grow strongly in all regions,” a Microsoft representative said.
-5.88%, the country’s largest owner of nuclear plants, was down 6.9% in early afternoon trading. Vistra Corp. VST -5.11%, another large nuclear and natural gas plant owner, was down 3.6%.
Nuclear reactor developers Oklo and NuScale dropped 9% and 1.2% respectively, after previously being down much more.
Paul Dotson, equity trading managing director at TD Securities, wrote in an email that the market appeared to be overreacting to the news. (Dotson wasn’t involved in the reports.) The news “is being misinterpreted,” he wrote. One issue is that the stocks had risen a lot beforehand and investors are “viewing news from a negative perspective—especially from sectors and themes which have outperformed.”
The selloff could signal a larger long-term issue for the stocks.
Nuclear and AI have been a great match over the past year. The nuclear stocks have soared on expected demand from new AI data centers owned by large tech firms like Microsoft. The tech companies like nuclear power because the electricity the reactors produce is reliable and the reactors don’t emit carbon, allowing the companies to meet carbon emissions pledges.
But the nuclear-AI connection isn’t always a great thing for nuclear companies. Upstart nuclear companies like Oklo have to prove over a long time period that they can construct and operate plants at reasonable costs. But their overall value is jumping up and down based on rumors or whims about the intentions of tech companies. The fate of the stocks can fluctuate on an hour-to-hour basis based on news they have no control over.
Write to Avi Salzman at avi.salzman@barrons.com
"Federal Regulator’s Approval for Gas Plant Queue-Jumping Sparks Outrage"
Fossil Fuels
Federal Regulator’s Approval for Gas Plant Queue-Jumping Sparks Outrage
Critics argue the federal decision props up costly fossil fuels power plants, does little to ensure grid reliability and undercuts state clean energy goals.
By Aman Azhar
February 22, 2025
PJM Interconnection claims that these power projects are needed to help meet growing energy demand and keep the grid reliable. Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s approval of PJM Interconnection’s plan to let 50 power projects, including nuclear and gas-fired plants, cut the line and connect to the grid ahead of hundreds of stalled renewable energy projects has ignited fierce backlash, with critics calling it “a dangerous precedent” that props up costly fossil fuels and tips the scale against renewables. The decision does little to fix PJM’s broken interconnection process, they argue, and deepens the rift between PJM’s reliability strategy and state-led clean energy goals.
PJM’s Reliability Resource Initiative (RRI) aims to fast-track new nuclear and fossil fuel generation projects to offset anticipated energy shortages as early as 2026, as coal plants retire and demand from data centers and increased electrification spikes.
Dispatchable power, like natural gas, is essential to reliability, partly due to state policies phasing out coal, PJM, the grid operator for the District of Columbia and portions of 13 states across the mid-Atlantic, South and Midwest, has argued.
But clean energy leaders insist renewables and battery storage could address reliability just as effectively if given a fair shot. They say PJM rules favor capital-intensive fossil fuel plants that are slower to build and complicate states’ clean energy goals.
FERC approved PJM’s proposal by a 3-1 vote on Feb. 11, with Commissioner Judy Chang dissenting and Commissioner Lindsay See abstaining.
In its decision, FERC agreed with PJM’s rationale that a one-time arrangement was needed to prevent potential electricity shortages by 2030, and that allowing 50 large power projects to move ahead will help meet growing energy demand and keep the grid reliable. FERC also endorsed PJM’s method of choosing these projects based on their impact and readiness, ensuring that the most needed and reliable projects get priority, especially in areas facing power supply challenges.
Not everyone agreed, though.
In her dissent, Chang slammed PJM’s scoring system for prioritizing size over speed, warning it won’t bring new power online fast enough to meet reliability risks predicted to occur between 2026 and 2030. “PJM’s filing presents a risk of the worst of both worlds: it compromises the Commission’s open access principles with no guarantee it will resolve PJM’s reliability issue,” she wrote. She said PJM ignored faster, grid-ready renewable projects in favor of larger, more complex plants that face permitting delays, supply shortages and transmission bottlenecks.
Chang also criticized PJM for capping approvals at 50 projects without ensuring enough capacity would be available to meet demand. She argued PJM overemphasized project size while failing to prioritize projects that use existing grid infrastructure, which could be deployed faster and at lower cost. “PJM, when designing its proposal, should have ensured that the in-service dates of the interconnecting resources receive the greatest weight,” she said.
In emailed comments, PJM spokesperson Jeffrey Shields said: “PJM continues to process new renewable projects and still they are not getting built fast enough to replace retiring generators while meeting growing demand.” He expressed his frustration at being called out for not processing enough renewable projects, claiming that PJM was “successfully implementing the reformed process and moving tens of thousands of megawatts worth of projects to completion in our study process.” Shields said that FERC’s order adequately explained the reasons why a measure like the RRI was necessary.
Still, Chang’s criticism was echoed by clean energy advocates.
Tom Rutigliano, a senior advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council, called FERC’s decision “a dangerous precedent” that expands emergency measures far beyond their intended scope.
“RRI is PJM admitting their interconnection queue is too slow to solve problems even with six years’ notice. That’s what PJM should be working on,” he said. If PJM had a speedy, efficient queue, “we could rely on markets and competition to solve this problem, rather than picking winners and losers.” He warned the decision creates market uncertainty because developers won’t know until years later when their projects will come online and if they must compete with RRI-backed projects.
Like Chang, Rutigliano argued that PJM’s rules favor fossil fuels and dispatchable resources over renewables and battery storage.
“There are two real problems with the criteria,” he said. “First, project size is considered more important than completion date, so RRI is likely to select large projects that won’t be completed far after the reliability problem PJM claims they’re trying to fix. Second, the scoring criteria exaggerates the difference between thermal resources and storage. It makes sense for PJM to consider the reliability value of the resources they pick, but that should be done fairly.”
Ada Statler, an associate attorney with the advocacy organization Earthjustice, said “the calculations PJM uses to justify the Resources Reliability Initiative fail to consider other sources of new generation that could close the gap without harming resources that have already been waiting to interconnect for years or frustrating state climate policy.” She cited a study from the sustainability nonprofit RMI that said PJM already has 3 gigawatts more power than needed if renewable projects and grid reforms moved forward.
“PJM is giving itself too much control over decisions about the generation mix that are supposed to be left to the states.”
— Ada Statler, Earthjustice
Statler also questioned PJM’s accounting of projects. ”While load growth is certainly accelerating, PJM has yet to develop an effective method of verifying that load growth projects are not speculative or double-counted from duplicative requests submitted in multiple areas,” she said.
Megan Wachspress, an attorney with the Sierra Club, warned that PJM is overstepping its authority by choosing which power plants get special treatment. “These criteria are not neutral or within the proper authority of the regional grid operator, meaning they interfere with state control. Even worse, this approach goes against state policies in New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois, which aim to boost renewable energy on the grid.”
Consumer advocates argue PJM’s lack of transparency is raising electricity prices across its service area. The Maryland Office of People’s Counsel has warned PJM that utilities and power suppliers may be exaggerating demand forecasts, leading PJM to uncritically accept speculative growth projections.
“We are concerned that because the RRI plays favorites by choosing which resources get special treatment in the interconnection process, PJM is giving itself too much control over decisions about the generation mix that are supposed to be left to the states,” Earthjustice’s Statler said.
Rutigliano agreed. “If states can’t get power plants connected, their authority is meaningless,” he said. “The law says that states have authority over generation, while the federal government controls transmission. That’s always been a balancing act, but the RRI ruling pushes far enough that the state’s authority becomes meaningless.”
Instead of focusing on short-term fixes, advocates urged FERC to follow rules it has already implemented, such as Order 2023. The rule is designed to speed up and simplify the process for connecting new power projects to the grid, reduce long wait times, improve transparency and help renewable energy projects get online faster by reforming how grid operators handle interconnection requests. It requires utilities to process projects in groups rather than one by one, making the system more efficient and reducing delays.
“Commissioners [David] Rosner and [Willie] Phillips supported RRI only as a one-time emergency measure. PJM must comply with Order 2023 and speed up interconnections to fix delays that block renewables from replacing outdated coal plants,” said Wachspress of the Sierra Club. “Instead of delays, PJM should focus on long-term transmission planning, expansion, and reducing interconnection wait times.”
Jacob Mays, an assistant professor in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Cornell University, said he expects to see more ad hoc modifications like RRI in systems across the U.S. given ongoing struggles with the queue process. “I think it is widely thought that more fundamental reforms enabling greater predictability and stability would be best in the long term,” he said, “but system operators are very focused on what they can do to address near-term concerns.”
Sunday, February 23, 2025
Trump's attack on Biden's IRA spending raises could complicate Palisades restart effort | The Blade
https://www.toledoblade.com/
Trump's attack on Biden's IRA spending raises could complicate Palisades restart effort
TOM HENRY
The Blade
Jan 23, 2025
President Trump’s freeze on Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act spending has, if nothing else, caused some confusion about the future of the historic Palisades nuclear plant restart effort and its ability to remain on the schedule outlined by its owner, Holtec International.
The cornerstone of the unprecedented project is a $1.52 billion loan agreement the U.S. Department of Energy finalized in September with Holtec.
The DOE money for that loan is coming from the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act, distributions from which Trump has frozen through an executive order. He also has ordered unspent money to be returned.
The IRA has been called America’s largest single investment in fighting climate change. Trump opposes it because, as a matter of policy, he doesn’t want to spend money on climate change projects.
“I definitely think it's causing confusion, without knowing exactly how the deal is structured,” said Edwin Lyman, director of Nuclear Power Safety for the Cambridge, Mass.-based Union of Concerned Scientists. “I think it depends on the project. At the minimum, it's confusing.”
For now, oil and natural gas drilling “will be king” under Trump, Mr. Lyman said.
The Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry’s chief lobbyist group on Capitol Hill, has in recent years rebranded the nuclear industry as a leading strategy for reducing climate-altering carbon dioxide emissions.
“The nuclear industry has been very successful in converting Democrats,” Mr. Lyman said. “That could backfire.”
But Nick Culp, Holtec Palisades senior manager of government affairs and communications, told The Blade he’s confident the project will remain on schedule and the DOE loan will be unharmed because of Trump’s general support of nuclear power as an energy source.
“We're very confident, based on the very strong support we're hearing from the President and his nominees,” Mr. Culp said. “We feel very confident the support will be there and there will be a place in which Palisades fits with America's energy agenda.”
Holtec, which has never operated a nuclear plant, is trying to make Palisades the first nuclear plant in American history to go back online after it has been mothballed and put into its decommissioning phase.
The plant ceased operations in May of 2022 when its previous owner, Entergy, said it was doing so permanently for economic reasons.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has been a strong supporter of the potential restart, calling the project an important part of her MI Healthy Climate Plan, which sets deadlines for the state to reduce its carbon emissions.
“We are reviewing. Thank you,” was the only statement received by The Blade from Ms. Whitmer’s office when asked for a comment about Trump’s executive order.
An online request for comment was submitted to White House communications, which acknowledged receipt but gave no immediate response.
“It’s certainly going to be disruptive,” Alan Blind, a retired nuclear power executive who once spent nearly seven years as the Palisades engineering director, said of Trump’s executive order.
While it’s possible the contract in place with the DOE will hold, even if all $1.52 billion hasn’t been distributed yet, that wouldn’t necessarily be the case if Holtec is found to be in violation of it.
He said there are multiple issues, one of the largest being the condition of the Palisades steam generator tubes.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission verified at a recent meeting that steam generator tubes went two years before they were laid up in a wet chemical process that was supposed to be done immediately after shutdown if the goal was to preserve them for additional usage. That protocol is an industry standard supported by California-based EPRI, a consulting group the nuclear industry often relies upon.
Mr. Culp said the extent of damage of steam generator tubes was simply part of the inspection process. He did not respond when asked why it took so long to store them in the wet chemical process.
Kevin Kamps, an activist with Maryland-based Beyond Nuclear who grew up near the plant, said that safety assurances are “very dubious, as [the] NRC is completely captured by the industry it is supposed to regulate.”
The NRC has said multiple times, including recently, that it will not authorize restart unless it is convinced it is safe to do so.
The government regulator also reminded Holtec and its contractors during a public meeting at the NRCs national headquarters in Rockville, Md., last week that it is not beholden to the company’s timetable.
Mr. Culp told The Blade that Holtec is still eyeing restart for the fourth quarter of this year, despite issues raised by Trump’s executive order.
First Published January 23, 2025, 10:30 a.m.
Tom Henry
Follow to receive notifications any time Tom Henry publishes a new story
59 Followers
Join the Conversation
We value your comments and civil discourse. Click here to review our Commenting Guidelines.
Friday, February 21, 2025
TMI-1: NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 05000289/2024001 AND 05000289/2024002
Dear TMI-1 Trackers,
Please see attached. Referenced in that document the December 19, 2024 SG Tube Inspection Report which I have
| Document Title: | Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Steam Generator Inspection Report for End of Cycle 22 |
| Document Type: | Inservice/Preservice Inspection and Test Report Letter |
| Document Date: | 12/19/2024 |
Reminder of 10:00 am Conference Call Thursday on TMI-1 Restart
(605) 475-5900 Passcode 499877#
(605) 475-5900 Passcode 499877#
From: NRC Region I Correspondence <NRCRegionICorrespondence.
(Attached) Date: 02/19/2025 4:12 PM EST
Subject: CONSTELLATION ENERGY GENERATION, LLC, THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 - NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 05000289/2024001 AND 05000289/2024002
CONSTELLATION ENERGY GENERATION, LLC, THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 - NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 05000289/2024001 AND 05000289/2024002
ADAMS ACCESSION No. ML25044A127
Wednesday, February 19, 2025
NRC Proposes $9,000 Civil Penalty to Materials Testing Consultants, Inc.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release
No: III-25-002 February 18, 2025
Contact: Viktoria Mitlyng, 630-829-9662 Prema Chandrathil, 630-829-9663
NRC Proposes $9,000 Civil Penalty to Materials Testing Consultants, Inc.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a $9,000 fine to Materials Testing Consultants in Grand Rapids, Michigan, for violations of NRC requirements associated with the control of NRC-regulated material.
The two violations involved the company’s failure to conduct physical inventories and maintain constant control and surveillance for licensed radioactive material and the associated devices when not in storage. These failures resulted in the loss of a portable gauge with radioactive material.
Upon notification, the NRC conducted an inspection and documented the two apparent violations in an October inspection report. Materials Testing Consultants responded to the violations, in a letter and an email, documenting actions it has taken to prevent recurrence.
The NRC has concluded that the company’s information and actions in response to the violation are adequate and compliance with NRC requirements has been addressed.
The company has 30 days to pay the proposed penalty, contest the penalty in writing, or request alternative dispute resolution with the NRC to resolve this issue.
‘We were duped’: Uranium shipments begin across Navajo land
‘We were duped’: Uranium shipments begin across Navajo land
Daily ore transport starts as activists question tribal leaders’ decision to allow mining company access
Shondiin Silversmith (February 19, 2025)
Navajo Nation Executive Director Stephen Etsitty holds a radiation monitor device up to the back of one of the two uranium ore haul trucks from Pinyon Plaine Mine on Feb. 12, 2024. Before the trucks could pass through Navajo land, they needed to be inspected near the entrance of Cameron, Arizona, the starting point of the haul route across the Navajo Nation. (Photo by Shondiin Silversmith. Arizona Mirror)
Read more: https://ictnews.org/news/we-were-duped-uranium-shipments-begin-across-navajo-land-
Tuesday, February 18, 2025
Iowa nuclear plant seeks unprecedented restart
Iowa nuclear plant seeks unprecedented restart
Site near Palo among three facilities seeking federal approval
By Jared Strong, The Gazette
Shuttered nuclear power plants have never been restarted in the United States, but the Duane Arnold Energy Center near Palo is poised to be among the few that try.
Its owner, NextEra Energy, hopes to finish its restoration of the facility that closed in 2020 in about three years, and resume operation in the final three months of 2028, according to documents it filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Two other companies are engaged in similar restart efforts — in Michigan and Pennsylvania — and one of them might be online later this year.
“NextEra is monitoring the progress made by (the other companies) and will make adjustments as appropriate, based on lessons learned from those precedential actions,” the company said in its regulatory filings.
The Duane Arnold site, if restarted, would have power output comparable with the smallest commercial nuclear power plant in the country — a single reactor facility in New York that has a maximum output capacity of 614 megawatts.
Duane Arnold’s is 615 megawatts. It is the only such facility in Iowa.
There are 54 commercial nuclear power plants in operation in the United States. The largest is in Georgia, with four reactors and a rated capacity of about 4,700 megawatts, or more than seven times the capacity of Duane Arnold.
Duane Arnold’s relatively low output — which makes the plant more expensive to operate per megawatt than others — combined with the accelerated adoption of wind power in Iowa, led NextEra to start decommissioning the facility in 2020. It ceased operation that August, after that year’s derecho damaged its cooling towers.
The company has since installed solar arrays at the site, which it will operate for Alliant Energy. The arrays can produce about a third of the total electrical output of the nuclear facility.
The interest in restarting Duane Arnold and other nuclear sites has been spurred by an uptick in the demand for electricity, driven by power-hungry data centers. Two are planned for Cedar Rapids.
The site has a capacity that is equivalent to about 2 percent of the total electrical generation in Iowa, according to state data.
OTHER SITES
The Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan is poised to be the first to restart after launching a decommissioning process.
It is several years older than Duane Arnold — having started operation in 1971 — but it has a higher output potential at about 800 megawatts.
It also started decommissioning later, in 2022. It was purchased by Holtec International, which started the recommissioning process less than a year later.
Holtec has indicated it would expand the site by adding two more reactors over the next decade. It cited strong support from Michigan state officials and the federal government for that decision.
The U.S. Department of Energy is backing a $1.5 billion loan to the company to restart the plant, and the state of Michigan gave it $300 million in the past two years.
It’s unclear what financial assistance Duane Arnold might receive in Iowa. A spokesperson for the company did not respond to a request to comment for this article.
Gov. Kim Reynolds said last month the potential for nuclear energy in Iowa “is amazing” and pledged to create a task force to support it. She noted that luring qualified employees — such as nuclear engineers — to Iowa is a potential challenge.
NextEra, in its correspondence with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said it “has developed a staffing plan that will gradually increase site and fleet staff to support initial inspections, facility renovations, and finally startup and operations.”
Duane Arnold employed more than 500 people when it was operational. NextEra said its annual payroll was about $85 million.
NextEra has said the facility is in good shape, aside from cooling towers that were damaged by the 2020 derecho. The commission has not yet published recent inspection information about the site.
An early inspection of the Palisades plant in Michigan identified “a large number” of heat transfer tubes that needed further analysis or repair. The fission power plants generate heat to turn water into steam, which drives turbines to create electricity.
The other nuclear power plant that might restart is in Pennsylvania. It began operation in 1974 — the same year as Duane Arnold — and began decommissioning in 2019.
The Three Mile Island Nuclear Station — now called the Crane Clean Energy Center — had a maximum output of 835 megawatts. Its owner started the recommissioning process in November 2024.
“Preliminary evaluations of key plant equipment have determined that the equipment is in good condition and can be restored without significant modifications,” its owner, Constellation Energy Corp., wrote to the commission.
There was a second reactor at the site that had a partial meltdown in 1979 and was not restarted.
The commission has created “restart panels” of experts to guide the recommissioning processes for each of the three power plants.
Sunday, February 16, 2025
Transcript of Palisades Nuclear Plant Oral Argument Hearing
Transcript of Palisades Nuclear Plant Oral Argument Hearing as docketed into ADAMS 2/14/2025
Document Title: Transcript of Palisades Nuclear Plant Oral Argument Hearing, February 12, 2025, Pages 1-94
Document Type: Legal-Hearing Transcript
| Document Date: | 02/14/2025 |
Thursday, February 13, 2025
The Atlantic: The False AI Energy Crisis
The False AI Energy Crisis
Donald Trump and AI executives alike have sounded the alarm about a looming AI-driven energy shortage. Both benefit from the concern.
By Matteo Wong
By Matteo Wong
Over the past few weeks, Donald Trump has positioned himself as an unabashed bull on America’s need to dominate AI. Yet the president has also tied this newfound and futuristic priority to a more traditional mission of his: to go big with fossil fuels. A true AI revolution will need “double the energy” that America produces today, Trump said in a recent address to the World Economic Forum, days after declaring a national energy emergency. And he noted a few ways to supply that power: “We have more coal than anybody. We also have more oil and gas than anybody.”
When the executives of AI companies talk about their ambitions, they tend to shy away from the environmental albatross of fossil fuels, pointing instead to renewable and nuclear energy as the power sources of the future for their data centers. But many of those executives, including OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Microsoft’s Satya Nadella, have also expressed concern that America could run out of the energy needed to sustain AI’s rapid development. An electricity shortage for AI chips, Elon Musk predicted last March, would arrive this year.
Both Trump and the oil and gas industry—which donated tens of millions of dollars to his presidential campaign—seem to have recognized an opportunity in the panic. The American Petroleum Institute has repeatedly stressed that natural gas will be crucial in powering the AI revolution. Now the doors are open. The oil giants Chevron and Exxon have both declared plans to build natural-gas-powered facilities connected directly to data centers. Major utilities are planning large fossil-fuel build-outs in part to meet the forecasted electricity demands of data centers. Meta is planning to build a massive data center in Louisiana for which Entergy, a major utility, will construct three new gas-powered turbines. Both the $500 billion Stargate AI-infrastructure venture and Musk’s AI supercomputer reportedly already or will rely on some fossil fuels.
If one takes the dire warnings of an energy apocalypse at face value, there’s a fair logic to drawing from the nation’s existing sources, at least in the near term, to build a more sustainable, AI-powered future. The problem, though, is that the U.S. is not actually in an energy crunch. “It is not a crisis,” Jonathan Koomey, an expert on energy and digital technology who has extensively studied data centers, recently told me. “There is no explosive electricity demand at the national level.” The evidence is ambiguous about a pending, AI-driven energy shortage, offering plenty of reason to believe that America would be fine without a major expansion in oil, coal, or natural-gas production—the latter of which the U.S. is already the world’s biggest exporter of. Rather than necessitating a fossil-fuel build-out, AI seems more to be a convenient excuse for Trump to pursue one. (The White House and its Office for Science and Technology Policy did not respond to requests for comment.)
Certainly, data centers will drive up U.S. energy consumption over the next few years. An analysis conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and published by the Department of Energy in December found that data centers’ energy demand doubled from 2017 to 2023, ultimately accounting for 4.4 percent of nationwide electricity consumption—a number that could rise to somewhere between 6.7 and 12 percent by 2028. Some parts of the country will be affected more than others. Northern Virginia has the highest concentration of data centers in the world, and the state is facing “the largest growth in power demand since the years following World War II,” Aaron Ruby, a spokesperson for Dominion Energy, Virginia’s largest utility, told me. Georgia Power, similarly, is forecasting significant demand growth, likely driven by data-center development. In the meantime, Microsoft, Google, and Meta are all rapidly building out power-hungry data centers.
When the executives of AI companies talk about their ambitions, they tend to shy away from the environmental albatross of fossil fuels, pointing instead to renewable and nuclear energy as the power sources of the future for their data centers. But many of those executives, including OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Microsoft’s Satya Nadella, have also expressed concern that America could run out of the energy needed to sustain AI’s rapid development. An electricity shortage for AI chips, Elon Musk predicted last March, would arrive this year.
Both Trump and the oil and gas industry—which donated tens of millions of dollars to his presidential campaign—seem to have recognized an opportunity in the panic. The American Petroleum Institute has repeatedly stressed that natural gas will be crucial in powering the AI revolution. Now the doors are open. The oil giants Chevron and Exxon have both declared plans to build natural-gas-powered facilities connected directly to data centers. Major utilities are planning large fossil-fuel build-outs in part to meet the forecasted electricity demands of data centers. Meta is planning to build a massive data center in Louisiana for which Entergy, a major utility, will construct three new gas-powered turbines. Both the $500 billion Stargate AI-infrastructure venture and Musk’s AI supercomputer reportedly already or will rely on some fossil fuels.
If one takes the dire warnings of an energy apocalypse at face value, there’s a fair logic to drawing from the nation’s existing sources, at least in the near term, to build a more sustainable, AI-powered future. The problem, though, is that the U.S. is not actually in an energy crunch. “It is not a crisis,” Jonathan Koomey, an expert on energy and digital technology who has extensively studied data centers, recently told me. “There is no explosive electricity demand at the national level.” The evidence is ambiguous about a pending, AI-driven energy shortage, offering plenty of reason to believe that America would be fine without a major expansion in oil, coal, or natural-gas production—the latter of which the U.S. is already the world’s biggest exporter of. Rather than necessitating a fossil-fuel build-out, AI seems more to be a convenient excuse for Trump to pursue one. (The White House and its Office for Science and Technology Policy did not respond to requests for comment.)
Certainly, data centers will drive up U.S. energy consumption over the next few years. An analysis conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and published by the Department of Energy in December found that data centers’ energy demand doubled from 2017 to 2023, ultimately accounting for 4.4 percent of nationwide electricity consumption—a number that could rise to somewhere between 6.7 and 12 percent by 2028. Some parts of the country will be affected more than others. Northern Virginia has the highest concentration of data centers in the world, and the state is facing “the largest growth in power demand since the years following World War II,” Aaron Ruby, a spokesperson for Dominion Energy, Virginia’s largest utility, told me. Georgia Power, similarly, is forecasting significant demand growth, likely driven by data-center development. In the meantime, Microsoft, Google, and Meta are all rapidly building out power-hungry data centers.
But as Koomey, who co-authored the LBNL forecast, argued, that forecasted growth does not seem likely to push the nation’s electricity demands past some precipice. Overall U.S. electricity consumption grew by 2 percent in 2024, according to federal data, and the Energy Information Administration predicted similar growth for the following two years. A good chunk of that growth has nothing to do with AI, but is the result of national efforts to electrify transportation, heating, and various industrial operations—factors that, in their own right, will continue to substantially increase the country’s electricity consumption. Even then, the U.S. produced more energy than it consumed every year from 2019 to 2023, as well as for all but one month for which there is data in 2024. An EIA outlook published last month expects natural-gas-fired electricity use to decline through 2026. John Larsen, who leads research into U.S. energy systems and climate policy at the Rhodium Group, analyzed the EIA’s power-plant data and found that 90 percent of all planned electric-capacity additions through 2028 will be from renewables or storage—and that the remaining additions, from natural gas, will be built at two-thirds the rate they have been over the past decade.
None of this discounts the fact that the AI industry is rapidly expanding. The near-term electricity-demand growth is likely real and “a little surprising,” Eric Masanet, a sustainability researcher at UC Santa Barbara and another co-author of the LBNL forecast, told me. More people are using AI products, tech companies are building more data centers to serve their customers, and more powerful bots may also need more power. Last year, Rene Haas, the CEO of Arm Holdings, which designs semiconductors, attracted much attention for his prediction that data centers around the world may use more electricity than the entire country of India by 2030. Some regional utilities have projected much higher demand growth into the late 2030s than nationwide estimates suggest. And chatbots or not, building enough electricity generation and power lines for transportation, heating, and industry in the coming years will be a challenge.
Still, tremendous uncertainty exists around just how power-hungry the AI industry will be in the long term. State utilities, for instance, are likely exaggerating demand, according to a recent analysis from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. That might be because utilities are overestimating the number of proposed data centers that will actually be built in their territories, according to a new Bipartisan Policy Center report that Koomey co-authored. And AI still could not turn out to be as world-changing and money-making as its makers want everyone to believe. Even if it does, the energy costs are not straightforward. Last month, the success of DeepSeek—an AI model from a Chinese start-up that matched top American models for lower costs—suggested that AI can be developed with lower resource demands, although DeepSeek’s cost and energy efficiency are still being debated. “It’s really not a good idea” to look beyond the next two to three years, Masanet said. “The uncertainties are just so large that, frankly, it’s kind of a futile exercise.”
If AI and data centers drive sustained, explosive electricity demand, natural gas and coal need not be the energy sources of choice. For now, utilities are likely planning to use some fossil fuels to meet short-term demand, because these facilities are more familiar and much quicker to integrate into the grid than renewable sources, Larsen told me. Plus, natural-gas turbines can operate around the clock and be ramped up to meet surges in demand, unlike solar and wind. But clean energy will also meet much of that short-term demand, if for no reasons other than cost and inertia: Solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries are becoming cost-competitive with natural gas and getting cheaper, while a growing number of industries are turning to renewable energy sources. The tech firms leading the AI race are major purchasers of and investors in clean energy, and many of these companies have also made substantial investments in nuclear power.
None of this discounts the fact that the AI industry is rapidly expanding. The near-term electricity-demand growth is likely real and “a little surprising,” Eric Masanet, a sustainability researcher at UC Santa Barbara and another co-author of the LBNL forecast, told me. More people are using AI products, tech companies are building more data centers to serve their customers, and more powerful bots may also need more power. Last year, Rene Haas, the CEO of Arm Holdings, which designs semiconductors, attracted much attention for his prediction that data centers around the world may use more electricity than the entire country of India by 2030. Some regional utilities have projected much higher demand growth into the late 2030s than nationwide estimates suggest. And chatbots or not, building enough electricity generation and power lines for transportation, heating, and industry in the coming years will be a challenge.
Still, tremendous uncertainty exists around just how power-hungry the AI industry will be in the long term. State utilities, for instance, are likely exaggerating demand, according to a recent analysis from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. That might be because utilities are overestimating the number of proposed data centers that will actually be built in their territories, according to a new Bipartisan Policy Center report that Koomey co-authored. And AI still could not turn out to be as world-changing and money-making as its makers want everyone to believe. Even if it does, the energy costs are not straightforward. Last month, the success of DeepSeek—an AI model from a Chinese start-up that matched top American models for lower costs—suggested that AI can be developed with lower resource demands, although DeepSeek’s cost and energy efficiency are still being debated. “It’s really not a good idea” to look beyond the next two to three years, Masanet said. “The uncertainties are just so large that, frankly, it’s kind of a futile exercise.”
If AI and data centers drive sustained, explosive electricity demand, natural gas and coal need not be the energy sources of choice. For now, utilities are likely planning to use some fossil fuels to meet short-term demand, because these facilities are more familiar and much quicker to integrate into the grid than renewable sources, Larsen told me. Plus, natural-gas turbines can operate around the clock and be ramped up to meet surges in demand, unlike solar and wind. But clean energy will also meet much of that short-term demand, if for no reasons other than cost and inertia: Solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries are becoming cost-competitive with natural gas and getting cheaper, while a growing number of industries are turning to renewable energy sources. The tech firms leading the AI race are major purchasers of and investors in clean energy, and many of these companies have also made substantial investments in nuclear power.
Using natural gas, coal, or oil to power the way to an AI future will not be the inevitable result of the physics, chemistry, or economics of electricity generation so much as a decision driven by politics and profit. AI proponents and energy companies “have an incentive to argue there’s going to be explosive demand,” Koomey told me. Tech firms benefit from the perception that they are building something so awe-inspiring and expensive that they need every possible source of energy they can get. Any federal blessing for data-center construction, as Trump granted Stargate, is a boon to production. Meanwhile, oil and gas companies want to sell more energy; utilities earn higher profits the more they spend on infrastructure; and the Republican Party, Trump included, has a pretense to satisfy demand to ramp up fossil-fuel production.
Of course, AI needn’t precipitate a national energy shortage to add to a different crisis. Microsoft and Google, despite promising to significantly reduce and offset their carbon footprints, both emit more greenhouse gases across their operations than they did a few years ago. Google’s emissions grew 48 percent from 2019 to 2023, the most recent year for which there is public data, and Microsoft’s are up 29 percent since 2020, an increase driven substantially by data centers. These companies want more power, and the fossil-fuel industry wants to supply it. While AI’s energy needs remain uncertain, the environmental damages of fossil-fuel extraction do not.
Saturday, February 8, 2025
NRC Issues Final Environmental Impact Statement for Oconee Nuclear Station Subsequent License Renewal
Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release
No: 25-009 February 7, 2025
CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200
NRC Issues Final Environmental Impact Statement for Oconee Nuclear Station Subsequent License Renewal
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has published its final environmental impact statement for the proposed second license renewal for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3.
The statement, or EIS, examines the environmental report, as supplemented, submitted by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, as part of its subsequent license renewal application. NRC staff concluded there are no adverse environmental impacts to preclude the renewal of Oconee’s operating licenses for an additional 20 years.
Duke Energy is seeking a second, or subsequent, licensing term to extend the plant’s operations from 60 to 80 years. The licenses for the Oconee reactors, located 30 miles west of Greenville, South Carolina, currently will expire Feb. 6, 2033, for Unit 1; Oct. 6, 2033, for Unit 2; and July 19, 2034, for Unit 3.
NRC staff issued its Safety Evaluation Report for Oconee’s subsequent license renewal in December 2022. The agency will consider the safety and environmental reports in making a final decision on extending the Oconee licenses from 60 to 80 years. Information about the Oconee subsequent license renewal review is available on the NRC website.
Thursday, February 6, 2025
Beaver Valley Unit 2 Event Report AUTOMATIC REACTOR TRIP
Dear Beaver Valley Trackers,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Operations Center
EVENT REPORTS FOR
02/05/2025 - 02/06/2025
EVENT NUMBERS
Power Reactor
Event Number: 57535
Facility: Beaver Valley
Region: 1
Region: 1
State: PA
Unit: [2] [] []
Unit: [2] [] []
RX Type: [1] W-3-LP,[2] W-3-LP
NRC Notified By: Jim Schwer
HQ OPS Officer: Bill NytkoNotification Date: 02/05/2025
Notification Time: 12:55 [ET]
Event Date: 02/05/2025
Event Time: 10:02 [EST]
Last Update Date: 02/05/2025
Emergency Class: Non Emergency
10 CFR Section:
50.72(b)(2)(iv)(B) - RPS Actuation - Critical
50.72(b)(3)(iv)(A) - Valid Specif Sys Actuation
Person (Organization):
Young, Matt (R1DO)
| Unit | SCRAM Code | RX Crit | Initial PWR | Initial RX Mode | Current PWR | Current RX Mode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | A/R | Y | 100 | Power Operation | 0 | Hot Standby |
Event Text
AUTOMATIC REACTOR TRIP
The following information was provided by the licensee via phone and email:
"At 1002 EST, on February 5, 2025, with Unit 2 in mode 1 at 100 percent power, the reactor automatically tripped due to lowering 'B' steam generator level. All control rods fully inserted into the core and the auxiliary feedwater system automatically started as designed in response to the full power reactor trip. The trip was not complex, with all systems responding normally post-trip. There was no equipment inoperable prior to the event that contributed to the reactor trip or adversely impacted plant response.
"Operations responded and stabilized the plant. Decay heat is being removed by discharging steam to the main condenser using the condenser steam dump valves. Unit 1 is not affected and remains at 100 percent power and stable. Due to the reactor protection system actuation while critical, this event is being reported as a four-hour, non-emergency notification per 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(iv)(B). Additionally, this event is being reported in accordance with 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(iv)(A) as an event that resulted in a valid actuation of the auxiliary feedwater system.
"There was no impact on the health and safety of the public or plant personnel. The NRC Resident Inspector has been notified."
The following information was provided by the licensee via phone and email:
"At 1002 EST, on February 5, 2025, with Unit 2 in mode 1 at 100 percent power, the reactor automatically tripped due to lowering 'B' steam generator level. All control rods fully inserted into the core and the auxiliary feedwater system automatically started as designed in response to the full power reactor trip. The trip was not complex, with all systems responding normally post-trip. There was no equipment inoperable prior to the event that contributed to the reactor trip or adversely impacted plant response.
"Operations responded and stabilized the plant. Decay heat is being removed by discharging steam to the main condenser using the condenser steam dump valves. Unit 1 is not affected and remains at 100 percent power and stable. Due to the reactor protection system actuation while critical, this event is being reported as a four-hour, non-emergency notification per 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(iv)(B). Additionally, this event is being reported in accordance with 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(iv)(A) as an event that resulted in a valid actuation of the auxiliary feedwater system.
"There was no impact on the health and safety of the public or plant personnel. The NRC Resident Inspector has been notified."
TMI-2 SOLUTIONS, LLC, THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 - NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 05000320/2024004 AND 07200080/2024004
TMI-2 SOLUTIONS, LLC, THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 - NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 05000320/2024004 AND 07200080/2024004
This document use the ADAMS number provided.
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
Don't fall for the Big Lie of nuclear energy by Cindy Folkers, Amanda M. Nichols
They won’t tell you these truths about nuclear energy by Cindy Folkers and Amanda M. Nichols, opinion contributors - 02/02/25 7:00 AM ET |
Saturday, February 1, 2025
AI and Nuclear Power on the Susquehanna River: More Questions than Answers
AI and Nuclear Power on the Susquehanna River:
More Questions than Answers.
Eric Epstein,
February 1, 2025
February 1, 2025
SEF Comments, (1_31_25).docx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
