Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on November 18, 2016
Is The Trump Presidency A Boon For Nuclear Power?
By now, the shock from Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election should be starting to subside, but this is hardly the case with worries over America’s course to a greener, more renewable-energy future. In fact, these worries have spiked in recent days, as the President-elect reaffirmed his commitment to the fossil fuel industry and his intention to pull the country out of the Paris Agreement on climate change.
How legitimate these worries are, however, remains to be seen.
Here’s the latest from the Marrakesh climate talks, courtesy of the AP. The EU is making unveiled hints that it would be smart for Trump to stay in the agreement, with Slovakian Environment Minister Laszlo Solymos quoted as saying that “it’s not easy to jump off a fast-moving train. If someone wants to deviate, it won’t be easy.”
China has also shown some optimism that Trump will tone down his anti-climate change rhetoric and stop short of taking radical action, with one Marrakesh delegate saying “We hope that the U.S. will continue to play a role in the climate change process.”
So far so good; everyone’s cautiously optimistic. But let’s say that Trump does stay true to his word and pulls out of the Paris Agreement, and goes ahead with scrapping subsidies for green power, and cozies up to Big Oil and Coal even more. The pressure for clean energy is unlikely to decline, at which point observers have to ask an important question – then what?
According to one nuclear power expert, one alternative is nuclear power. In a detailed proposal published on Atomic Insights, Rod Adams argues that nuclear should receive some special attention from the President-elect.
Nuclear, says Adams, is “the mother lode of untapped potential”, referring to Trump’s statement during his victory speech in which he said he spent his life looking at untapped potential. To tap this potential, the new president should simply encourage the nuclear industry by improving regulations and boosting the effectiveness of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
From Adams’ perspective, nuclear can compete effectively with oil and gas, and with solar and wind power, if all are put on an equal footing, which is not the case at the moment. All it needs is the government to stop putting obstacles in its way. In fact, says Adams, the nuclear power industry won’t even need much in the way of funding as growing demand for cheap, clean energy will pay the bills.
Not everyone in the nuclear field is so optimistic, however. According to energy writer Dennis Wamsted, Trump’s presidency could actually spell the demise of the U.S. nuclear industry. Many existing nuclear power plants, he notes, need subsidies for their survival in an environment dominated by oil, gas, and renewables.
The only two arguments in defense of nuclear power are that it’s relatively cheap, and that it’s much cleaner than fossil fuels. Clean power does not appear to be on the top of Trump’s agenda, or so we’re led to believe by his remarks that climate change is a hoax. But as a business man who “makes good deals”, low-cost power could indeed turn his attention to nuclear.
Even if it does, though, there will be a public outcry—that’s a certainty. Anti-nuclear sentiments are not as rife as they were in 2011 after the Fukushima disaster, but the anti-nuclear lobby is still strong. Yet, Trump is all about job creation, and new NPP construction and operation will create jobs. It looks like “Trump and nuclear power” is one more important point on the agenda that we’ll need to keep tabs on.
By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com
4 Comments on "Is The Trump Presidency A Boon For Nuclear Power?"
Go Speed Racer on Sat, 19th Nov 2016 1:22 am
Praise The Lord Jesus in his Greyhound Bus converted to a mobile praise center and tax deduction. Praise The Lord that everybody in the USA is too fat and stupid to know the difference between the Thorium fuel cycle and the Uranium fuel cycle. Then only sell Uranium fuel rods that cover the Earth with nuclear waste. And then the shares of GE will keep going up and what do I care if you get nuked by a burning spent fuel pool, so long as my GE shares keep going up.
Of course Trump will build more Uranium fuel cycle power plants. Trump would also thrill to mix nuclear waste into your food supply.
Davy on Sat, 19th Nov 2016 7:49 am
Paris Agreement on climate change is a joke and was prepared by thousands of hypocritical bureaucrats and delusional scientist. Green activist love it because it is a concrete step to their vision of a shiny new world of carbonless affluence. The reality is it was a party in Paris that released huge amounts of carbon for an agreement that is hollow and useless. It is the OPEC of the green world and does more harm than good. We are giving people a false sense of hope and a blue print for nothing. Nations will continue to do as they please with only window dressing changes.
A real agreement would have been a rejection of globalism and modern life. We would take steps to turn away from the car culture and a culture of consumerism. We would acknowledge that this will crash globalism and result in the halving of the global population in as little as 5 years. This risk would be acknowledge because a change of that magnitude may not be survivable and still have an advance civilization. This agreement called Plan C for “Planned Collapse” would be a process with a period of a 5 year crash preparation process with the continuation of the status quo until a sufficient amount of logistics could be completed. Everyone would know that no amount of preparation would be enough to avoid mass pain and suffering. People would be educated to the horrors of the results of this crash program. Those not agreeing to this crash program would be interned in forced work and reeducation camps.
Alternative energy would be a vital part of this process but not as it is today. It would be produced in huge amounts for end use as lighting and aids to agriculture. Emergency services of all kinds would be enhanced for sustainability and resilience to this planned collapse scenario. Water systems and waste systems would be enhanced robustly with alternatives. Permaculture technics and tools would be hastily created. Mass reeducation would be performed with most traditional subjects eliminated for a narrow range of vital learning for what is ahead.
Cities would be depopulated and people would be moved back to the land en mass where possible. Where this is not possible attempts would be made to lower the pain and suffering with hospices. Huge amounts of suicide equipment would be stockpiled so people could humanly end their lives when starvation would inevitably grip the population. The results of a move back to the land where possible would be like Pol Pot’s killing fields. It is not that the authorities would be cruel and inhuman like Pol Pot. It will be called killing fields because the process is beyond the scope of what most modern people would be able to adapt to. This transition would in effect be a forced bottleneck with deadly results.
We would need to end market capitalism and liberal democracy based upon the 20th century version. This would be fine in a localized application. At the top we would need a military junta and or a strong man type government imposing this policy without review by the masses. All levels of economic and political activity would be controlled at the regional level. Locals could be allowed to practice their own version of markets and politics if it achieve the results of these polices.
Modern medicine would be rationed and certain types of death allowed. People at the end of their life would be allowed to die. High risk births allowed to die on the other end of the spectrum. Deadly conditions not treated. Most prescription drugs eliminated except those that fit a return to a Plan C world. Forced family planning would be employed. Those who are deemed worth of procreation allowed to reproduce all others sterilized. Forced lifestyle education would be mandatory. Leisure would be of the kind that does not produce carbon. Travel would be restricted to a localized lifestyle. Food would be localized and made seasonal.
Now that is a Friggen agreement with some teeth. That pussy shit out of Paris is a joke. So tell me does that read like a SCI-FI story or what. The chances of a human population pro-actively employing these effective policies are close to zero. The likelihood of nature forcing this scenario on a global population in decline and decay are likely near 100%. It is ashamed we don’t come to our senses and make many of these changes while we can. In the meantime party as if you were in Paris like those hypocritical activist, scientist, and bureaucrats. Shit some carbon every chance you can get and we will get this process over with and get on with a new way of life.
Sissyfuss on Sat, 19th Nov 2016 1:00 pm
I’ve already seen the movie you’re describing, Davy. It’s called “Soylent Green”. Quite prescient, wasn’t it.
Davy on Sat, 19th Nov 2016 1:24 pm
I have not watched the movie but I probably should considering the omen it represents. I was never into the Sci-Fi genre. I am a boring documentary type.