• 3 minutes Oil Price Could Fall To $30 If Global Deal Not Extended
  • 8 minutes Why Is America (Texas) Burning Millions of Dollars Per Day Of Natural Gas?
  • 11 minutes Is $60/Bbl WTI still considered a break even for Shale Oil
  • 15 minutes CNN:America's oil boom will break more records this year. OPEC is stuck in retreat
  • 8 hours The Pope: "Climate change ... doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain."
  • 5 hours Greenpeace claims one oil rig is "pushing the world closer to a climate catastrophe"
  • 2 days Hormuz and surrounding waters: Energy Threats to the World: Oil, LNG, shipping markets digest new risks after Strait of Hormuz attack
  • 43 mins Hydrogen FTW... Some Day
  • 12 hours The Latest: Iranian FM Says US Cannot Expect To ‘Stay Safe’
  • 4 hours Middle East on brink: Oil tankers attacked off Oman
  • 1 day Russia removes special military forces from Venezuela . . . . Maduro gone by September ? . . . Oil starts to flow ? Think so . .
  • 12 hours Emmissions up, renewables nowhere
  • 1 day Plants are Dying
  • 2 days The Magic and Wonders of US Shale Supply: Keeping energy price shock minimised: US oil supply keeping lid on prices despite global risks: IEA chief
  • 2 days Never Knew Gasoline Prices were this important!
  • 2 days We Are Better Than This
  • 2 days (Un)expectedly: UK Court Sets Assange U.S. Extradition Hearing For February 2020
Alt Text

Nuclear Is Not A Catch-All Solution To Climate Change

Though many pundits and analysts…

Alt Text

U.S. Nuclear Has A Tough Road Ahead

High-profile disasters and a booming…

Alt Text

Another Nuclear Megaproject Bites The Dust

Toshiba, the troubled Japanese electrical…

Irina Slav

Irina Slav

Irina is a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing on the oil and gas industry.

More Info

Trending Discussions

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. Related: Saudi Arabia Issues Warning To Trump: Don’t Stop Saudi Oil Imports

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. Related: The U.S. Just Became A Net Exporter Of Natural Gas

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

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage

Trending Discussions

Leave a comment
  • Bill Simpson on November 18 2016 said:
    Building nuclear power plants would create thousands of high paying construction jobs. And as electric cars come to dominate in the future, the demand for electricity will explode. All the energy now supplied by burning millions of gallons of gasoline every day, will have to come from electricity charging batteries at night. That is a LOT of electrical energy that will have to come from somewhere. The sun doesn't shine half the day, and batteries are an expensive hassle. Canada and Australia have massive supplies of uranium. Those are the kind of people Trump's friends seem to like to trade with - English speakers. And why waste fossil fuels, which are finite and can be used in making thousands of products, when you can use uranium which is only good for power and nuclear bombs?
  • David Wilson on November 19 2016 said:
    Nuclear is not cheap, but actually far more expensive than almost any other current energy source. It is only cheap when subsidized massively by taxpayers, as well as (most importantly), by future generations who will have to pay trillions to decommission old reactors. This is to say nothing of the fact that governments essentially indemnify nuclear power providers for nuclear accidents - again, the taxpayer is on the hook. Another excellent way to privatize profits and socialize costs.
  • Karl Marx on December 07 2016 said:
    Molten-salt reactors (MSR) are the future, and probably the best shot that we have at not being cooked by global warming. China is already making two MSR, and their safer, easier to build, much less expenseve, and produces a lot more power than conventional reactors (http://fortune.com/2015/02/02/doe-china-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor/). Also, lol socializing costs is almost definitely the only way to make this work, and also the profits of this is literally everyone on the planet not dying, so how less privatized could the profits possibly get?

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News