{"id":340710,"date":"2024-08-26T09:28:12","date_gmt":"2024-08-26T07:28:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=340710"},"modified":"2024-08-26T09:28:16","modified_gmt":"2024-08-26T07:28:16","slug":"where-are-the-pro-nuclear-democrats","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=340710","title":{"rendered":"Where Are The Pro-Nuclear Democrats?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
Theodore Roosevelt knew how to use the bully pulpit. Photo:\u00a0Wikipedia<\/a><\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From The Robert Bryce Substack<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once again, nuclear energy is absent from the Democratic Party Platform and it’s gone missing at the same time China is accelerating its nuclear buildout. Plus, radio and podcast hits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

About 15 years ago, I visited a high-ranking official at the Department of Energy at his office in Washington. We chatted for 30 minutes about the obstacles facing nuclear energy deployment in the US, including Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations, supply chains, and the need for a stable fuel supply. Toward the end of our conversation, he said that one of the biggest problems with nuclear energy is that it needs bipartisan support in Congress. That hasn\u2019t happened because \u201cDemocrats are pro-government and anti-nuclear,\u201d he said. Meanwhile, \u201cRepublicans are pro-nuclear and anti-government.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be clear, Democrats have been more vocal recently in their support for nuclear energy. In June, during an appearance at the Plant Vogtle in Georgia, where two new 1-gigawatt nuclear reactors have come online, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said, \u201cWe have to at least triple our current nuclear capacity in this country<\/a>.\u201d Also in June, the Senate passed, by a vote of 88 to 2, the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act, which aims to speed up the federal process for approving and deploying new reactors. (Ed Markey, the Democrat from Massachusetts, and Bernie Sanders, the Independent from Vermont, were the only senators to vote no<\/a> on the measure.)  Last month, President Biden signed that bill into law<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The passage of the ADVANCE Act (and Granholm\u2019s rhetoric) will give a much-needed boost to the domestic nuclear sector. But don\u2019t expect to hear the words \u201cnuclear energy\u201d during the final two days of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Nor will you find a single mention of nuclear energy in the just-released Democratic Party Platform<\/a>. Alas, this isn\u2019t surprising.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The omission of nuclear energy in the party\u2019s platform shows, yet again, that while Democrats are making climate change a top talking point \u2014 the word \u201cclimate\u201d appears 81 times in the 92-page platform \u2014 the Democratic Party is still firmly in the grip of big anti-nuclear NGOs that operate on $100 million+ annual budgets. Those groups, which include Sierra Club, NRDC, and League of Conservation Voters, are integral to the party\u2019s fundraising and get-out-the-vote effort. Those same NGOs continue to insist that the US can run its economy on alt-energy. Thus, the party\u2019s top leaders dare not risk alienating them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, as I explained in May, renewable energy fetishism<\/a> dominates the Left\u2019s approach to energy. The word \u201csolar\u201d appears nine times in the party\u2019s platform, wind energy gets two mentions, and \u201cclean energy\u201d \u2014 the catch-all marketing term that has become the rationale for hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate welfare under the Inflation Reduction Act \u2014 appears 44 times. (The word \u201cTrump\u201d appears 150 times<\/a>!)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The omission of nuclear energy in the 2024 Democratic Party Platform means that over the past 52 years, nuclear power has received only one positive mention in its platform. That mention occurred in 2020. I wrote about it four years ago in <\/a>Forbes<\/a><\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

It took five decades, but the Democratic Party has finally changed its stance on nuclear energy. In its recently released party platform, the Democrats say they favor a \u201ctechnology-neutral\u201d approach that includes \u201call zero-carbon technologies, including hydroelectric power, geothermal, existing and advanced nuclear<\/a>, and carbon capture and storage.\u201d That statement marks the first time since 1972 that the Democratic Party has said anything positive in its platform about nuclear energy. The change in policy is good \u2014 and long overdue \u2014 news for the American nuclear-energy sector and for everyone concerned about climate change. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Before going further, I must note that the Republicans aren\u2019t exactly jumping up and down over nuclear energy. In its 16-page platform, the GOP mentions it just once<\/a>, saying, \u201cRepublicans will unleash Energy Production from all sources, including nuclear, to immediately slash Inflation and power American homes, cars, and factories with reliable, abundant, and affordable Energy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So why does this matter? There are four reasons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, China and other countries are leaping ahead of the US in terms of nuclear energy. Earlier this week, China announced it will spend $31 billion to build 11 new reactors<\/a> over the next five years. The new projects include a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor in Jiangsu province. The US has led the world in nuclear technology since the end of World War II. And yet, we now risk being technological laggards in deploying new nuclear technology. According to the IAEA, China now has 28.5 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity under construction. The US, again, according to the IAEA, has no reactors under construction<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, there is no chance for large-scale decarbonization of the global economy without nuclear energy, and lots of it. Last December, during COP28 in Dubai, the US and more than 20 other countries signed a pledge to triple nuclear energy production by 2050. The first sentence of the declaration \u201crecognizes the key role of nuclear energy in achieving global net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050<\/a>.\u201d The US delegation\u00a0led the push to get countries to sign the declaration<\/a>. So why aren\u2019t Democrats touting their own effort?<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Third, while polls show a tight race between Harris and Trump, the majority of Americans, some 56%, favor nuclear energy. An August 5 poll from the Pew Research Center found support for nuclear has soared over the past four years<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Americans remain more likely to favor expanding solar power (78%) and wind power (72%) than nuclear power. Yet while support for solar and wind power has declined by double digits since 2020 \u2014 largely driven by drops in Republican support \u2014 the share who favor nuclear power has grown by 13 percentage points over that span.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Fourth, the bully pulpit<\/a> matters. If the US is going to revive its nuclear sector \u2014 an industry that has been withering for the past three decades \u2014 the public needs to hear about it from the country\u2019s top leaders. Alas, that hasn\u2019t happened at the convention in Chicago. And given the absence of nuclear energy in the Democrats\u2019 platform, there\u2019s no reason to expect to hear anything about nuclear tonight or tomorrow night.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Podcast and radio hits<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n