Last week, the Trump Administration issued 4 EO's signaling the importance of expanding nuclear energy and acknowledging the role of the Federal Government in supporting the growth of nuclear energy
It’s true that signaling from the top,whether Eisenhower back in the day or Trump now,can shift the narrative, but building reactors is not a narrative issue. It's an execution issue.
Quadrupling nuclear capacity by 2050 sounds bold, but even doubling would require unprecedented coordination across engineering, workforce, permitting, and capital markets. The AP1000 example really puts it in perspective,10 years from approval to operation, if all goes smoothly. And most things in U.S. infrastructure today don’t go smoothly.
I also think the DOD channel is probably the most immediate lever we’ve got. Not just for energy security, but also for proving concepts at small scale under less regulatory paralysis. Civilian deployment will require cost convergence, and like you said, the only way to drive costs down is through design standardization and serial production.
One point I’d add: until we solve transmission bottlenecks, baseload generation alone won't be enough. The ERCOT conversation you all had is a good reminder that energy abundance doesn’t translate to delivery capability. Maybe pairing federal land use authority with fast-track transmission corridors could be the real policy unlock,if there’s political will.
And yes, the U.S. still treats spent fuel like a liability when it's a future resource. Reprocessing isn’t a tech issue,it’s a political one.
It’s true that signaling from the top,whether Eisenhower back in the day or Trump now,can shift the narrative, but building reactors is not a narrative issue. It's an execution issue.
Quadrupling nuclear capacity by 2050 sounds bold, but even doubling would require unprecedented coordination across engineering, workforce, permitting, and capital markets. The AP1000 example really puts it in perspective,10 years from approval to operation, if all goes smoothly. And most things in U.S. infrastructure today don’t go smoothly.
I also think the DOD channel is probably the most immediate lever we’ve got. Not just for energy security, but also for proving concepts at small scale under less regulatory paralysis. Civilian deployment will require cost convergence, and like you said, the only way to drive costs down is through design standardization and serial production.
One point I’d add: until we solve transmission bottlenecks, baseload generation alone won't be enough. The ERCOT conversation you all had is a good reminder that energy abundance doesn’t translate to delivery capability. Maybe pairing federal land use authority with fast-track transmission corridors could be the real policy unlock,if there’s political will.
And yes, the U.S. still treats spent fuel like a liability when it's a future resource. Reprocessing isn’t a tech issue,it’s a political one.
Nuclear energy should very much be part of the mix, no doubt.