Revive Nuclear Energy in America
Reviving nuclear power in the U.S. is key to economic development, increasing energy exports, lower costs, and cutting carbon emissions. But bureaucracy, myths, and politics keep America lagging.
Don’t miss my latest segment on Fox Business “Making Money with Charles Payne”.
NOTE: California insanely requires 100% of new cars and light trucks sold in the state to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035, but won’t build new electric plants to charge them. The entire United States ignores nuclear, which is essential for powering a laser-based Golden Dome missile defense, quickly-growing AI demand, reshored manufacturing, and of course (if the left really means what it says) reducing carbon emissions. Nuclear could also free up phenomenal amounts of natural gas for export, improving global security and enriching America in the process.
So why don’t we act? That is the question. There’s no sensible answer. — RDM
by Edward Ring
May 7, 2025
The United States used to be the undisputed leader in nuclear power and still has more operating reactors than any other nation, with 94 currently in service. But in the last 35 years, only one new nuclear power plant has been built in the U.S. — Plant Vogtle in Georgia, which only recently began commercial operations.
Meanwhile, 25 nuclear reactors are under construction in China, seven in India, four each in Turkey, Egypt, and Russia, and two each in South Korea, Bangladesh, Japan, the UK, and Ukraine. The nations of Argentina, Brazil, France, Iran, and Slovakia are all building one plant at present.
When it comes to nuclear energy, the world is leaving the USA behind, and despite a recent return to sanity with the new Trump administration, conventional wisdom in the U.S. is that nuclear power is too expensive and too dangerous. Both are incorrect.
In California, where insanity retains a firm grip on energy policy, one might think nuclear power would nonetheless be getting serious consideration. After all, nuclear energy doesn’t generate greenhouse gases, which is the official explanation for every imaginable mishap in the Golden State, from wildfires to alleged gender inequality.
Is California serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions? If so, then maybe if the myths of high costs and excessive risk could be debunked, California could embrace nuclear energy.
It isn’t as if there isn’t precedent.
 |
|