By Kelly Sloan | Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice
We have not been afforded any authoritative glimpses into the proposed energy policies of either Mr. Trump or Ms. Harris, leaving us with only the conventional jousting positions with which to make comparisons.
For Democrats, that generally means concerns over climate change exceeding every other consideration – meaning the minimizing of the use of oil and gas; for Republicans, it generally means strengthening national energy posture – meaning maximizing production of domestic supplies of oil and gas.
Those battle lines seem relatively inelastic and are expected to hold; but an interesting evolution has been quietly taking place on the left side of the aisle, and I’m not talking about Harris’ new-found appreciation of fracking – it’s the gradual embrace by some Democrats of nuclear energy.
Even pre-dating the current aversion to fossil-fuels, liberal Democratic disdain of nuclear power was a constant. It has animated the left throughout the world since at least 1970’s, spurring entire political movements in Europe. Antipathy to nuclear energy is still one of the more enduring superstitions of the late 20th century.
But cracks in the left-wing’s anti-nuclear fortifications are beginning to show. After decades of hostility, the Democratic platform begrudgingly recognizes that nuclear power is an option. This summer, President Biden signed a bipartisan bill promoting nuclear development. In terms of domestic energy policy, this polar shift is rather the equivalent of the Berlin Wall coming down. Welcome to reality, I say.
But there is a reason this rather seismic shift in Democratic policy has been kept relatively quiet. Yes, they did a nice press release that you can find online, and here and there you find a news story about it. But they are not exactly shouting it from the mountaintops, and it has not featured prominently as a debate or interview question. The reason for that is that a large Democratic constituency – the environmentalists – are not yet on board. From the website of the Sierra Club: “The Sierra Club remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy… Nuclear is no solution to Climate Change and every dollar spent on nuclear is one less dollar spent on truly safe, affordable and renewable energy sources. Help us work to phase out nuclear as quickly as possible.” From Greenpeace: “Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive. Say no to new nukes. Nuclear energy has no place in a safe, clean, sustainable future. Nuclear energy is both expensive and dangerous,” and on and on. That’s a lot of donor dollars at risk for embracing reality.
The monied fanatics aside, the simple realities of nuclear power, touted by conservatives for decades, is finally looking more likely to gain political ground. A Pew Research Center poll done in August found that a solid majority of Americans support nuclear energy. Even 49% of Democrats favor it, up 12% from just four years ago. The reason: moist of the non-fanatical populace recognized the inherent need for a reliable energy source that can produce enough electricity to keep the grid operating. Microsoft just struck a deal with Constellation energy to open up Three Mile Island to power one of its new facilities. Unlike the Governor of California, they realize that wind and solar will keep their machinery humming along, no matter how big the batteries.
This is all encouraging, and conservatism always welcomes late converts. But the left has to reckon with the fact that its decades of recalcitrance has stifled the American nuclear industry. No new nuclear plant has been built in the U.S. since 2016, and that reactor was six years behind schedule and $16 billion over budget. Most of America’s nuclear reactors were built between 1970 and 1990, and average around 40 years old. Cost is often cited as the reason, but why is it so expensive? France figured it out. Granted, the French, and others, have pumped a lot of public money into these projects, but that still fails to account for the glacial pace of America’s industry.
The answer lies largely in the regulatory obstacles erected over the years by Democrats who fell in line with the anti-nuclear hysteria. Not just the barriers and administrative minefields applied directly to nuclear, but to the mining and processing of uranium.
It should come as no surprise that the two sides are converging for different reasons. For Republicans, nuclear represents an efficient, dispatchable alternative, one that can contribute to U.S. energy security, and symbolizes (to a large extent) American technological prowess. For the Democrats, it is about climate change: they are belatedly coming to the realization that nuclear power is clean, and the only viable alternative to coal, oil, and natural gas for powering the electric grid and meeting demand. However we get there, a political reconciliation over nuclear is welcome. But with Harris, the concern is of a half-way commitment – as with backing away from supporting a prohibition on fracking, while also refusing to commit to lifting the LNG export ban. For Harris, and the other Democratic converts, the ostensible new support for nuclear needs to be linked to a commitment to remove controls over the industry, including mining permitting reforms. But one fears she is no more willing to confront the left flank of her party on this issue as she is with any other.
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.