By admin 
Jane Fonda isn’t a nuclear expert, but she played one on TV. In the 1979 film The China SyndromeFonda portrayed Kimberly Wells, a lively news reporter who uncovered a cover-up at a nuclear power plant. The conspiracy included the possibility of a nuclear meltdown that could “render an area the size of Pennsylvania permanently uninhabitable.”
The timing and location of the film were both impeccable. Twelve days after Fonda’s film hit theaters, a reactor on Three Mile Island (TMI) in central Pennsylvania partially melted down. The accident was the result of “mechanical failure…made worse by a combination of human error,” according to a federal post-mortem examination. report.
There were no documented fatalities, illnesses, or injuries; TMI suffered more from poor emergency planning, haphazard public relations, and hyperbolic media meltdowns than from the actual meltdown itself. But the incident was cannon fodder for the anti-nuclear movement. Fonda, an ardent anti-nuclear activist, knew long before the accident that she and her comrades controlled the zeitgeist. “You know the expression ‘We had legs’?” she said later. “We became a caterpillar after Three Mile Island.”
The subsequent fear-mongering campaign effectively killed nuclear power in the United States. The construction of new nuclear power stations declined significantly. After the Chernobyl meltdown in the Soviet Union in 1986, American nuclear construction came to a standstill. Since 1986 only a few reactors are built in the US, including recently completed Units 3 and 4 at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Georgia. This is significantly less nuclear capability than we should have, even before considering the rise of AI.
But now nuclear energy is on the verge of a comeback, with Silicon Valley leading the way.
Tech companies are opting for nuclear energy
Artificial intelligence (AI) devours electricity. A ChatGPT search required about 10 times more watt-hours than a traditional Google search. Training GPT-3, a large language model that uses AI to generate text, required approximately 1,300 megawatt hours (MWh) – the same as the annual energy consumption of 130 households.
Our networks need an additional capacity of minimum 18 gigawatt (GW) to serve AI data centers by 2030. New York City’s power grid is about 6 GW annually, so the power grid needs a capacity of about three Big Apples to meet AI’s energy needs.
Intermittent sources, such as wind and solar energy, cannot meet that need. They are also expensive to build for the small amounts of MWh they produce, and the landmass required to have a capacity comparable to that of nuclear power is enormous. What would take about 10 square miles of solar power, nuclear power can do in one go – and that 15 square miles of solar power would only produce power occasionally, while that one square mile of nuclear power provides power 24 hours a day.
Nuclear energy provides baseload power: the constant, uninterrupted, adequate supply of energy that keeps the networks running.
Nuclear power is the most reliable, zero-carbon energy source available today, which is why tech companies are increasingly embracing it. Amazon recently announced a $500 million investment in small modular reactors in Virginia and Washington. Googling will finance seven small-scale reactors that use molten fluoride salt instead of water. While not as optimistic as its competitors, Apple has added quietly nuclear energy as part of its sustainability goals.
“Nuclear energy, if we do it right, will help us achieve our climate goals,” said Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates. told ABC last year. “That is, get rid of greenhouse gas emissions without making the electricity system much more expensive or less reliable.”
“This trend isn’t just a market glitch – it’s part of a larger movement that has far-reaching implications for investors, especially as we enter the age of artificial intelligence.” writes Frank Holmes, CEO and Chief Investment Officer of US Global Investors. “Nuclear energy really seems to be making a big comeback.”
Private capital investment in nuclear energy has increased dramatically in recent years. The value of nuclear investments jumped from $12 million in 2015 to $1.1 billion in 2022 – an increase of 9,000 percent.
While the rise of nuclear power is a positive trend for reliable energy, removing equally reliable and affordable hydrocarbons from the grid is a scientific and economic impossibility. And while this influx of investment heralds a new era for nuclear energy, it also points to persistent market barriers. Nuclear energy is capital intensive and market access costs remain high. Building new factories is exponentially more expensive than keeping existing facilities online – and government regulation is often to blame.
Strangled by red tape
In the aftermath of the TMI meltdown, government fines and permits were imposed on nuclear power plants significantly less profitable. Has regulations inflated the time and costs required to plan, build and maintain a new nuclear power plant. Paperwork, fees and other compliance-related expenses can add up $60 million in annual costs for the average U.S. nuclear power plant.
Time is money, and few projects require more time than nuclear projects. The global average construction time varies from 7.5 Unpleasant 11 years, depending on sample size. The average construction time in Germany, France and Russia this is about 80 months (almost 7 years); in Japan this is about 60 months (about 5 years).
But in the United States the process takes much longer. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the federal agency responsible for regulating civilian nuclear use, is notoriously restrictive. Even a minor adjustment to the plan requires additional NRC approval, which often causes significant delays. Southern Company started construction of its newest reactors in 2009. After 14 years and several rounds of redundant scrutiny and approval by regulators, both reactors came online in the summer of 2024 – seven years after the originally planned start date and more than double the original budget.
Considering both permitting and construction, the eventual completion of U.S. nuclear power plants could surpass this 20 years. Given the time and cost involved, it’s no wonder so many investors are too scared to jump into the new nuclear game.
This domestic scarcity has resulted in significant international disparity in the development of new nuclear energy. As of July 2024, China leads the world with 25 reactors under construction, followed by India with seven, then Turkey, Egypt and Russia with four each. The United States has now done just that No new reactors or power stations currently under construction.
To justify this regulatory overreach, nuclear skeptics cite safety concerns. But that of the nuclear industry safety record is unprecedented – and not because of those regulations. Even before the TMI incident (which was released minimal radiation), nuclear power’s record was virtually flawless. From 1957 (when the first nuclear reactor in the United States became operational) and the partial meltdown of TMI, only one other accident occurred: the Argonne explosion of 1961which left three employees dead. For comparison: 4,860 people were dying in coal mines at the same time.
The Return of Three Mile Island
Today, Three Mile Island signals a new direction for affordable, reliable and abundant energy.
When the plant first closed in 2019, state lawmakers flirted with one $500 million taxpayer-funded bailout. Fortunately, that bill failed to move out of committee. Instead, on the fifth anniversary of the shutdown, Constellation Energy and Microsoft announced a partnership to bring the plant back online.
Under the 20-year agreement, Constellation will restart the plant’s undamaged reactor, which was closed in 2019, and sell energy directly to Microsoft. The tech giant, in turn, will supply its growing need for artificial intelligence with 24-hour energy.
Although not purely market-driven (Constellation recently filed). a federal loan), the TMI plans are in stark contrast to the track record of industrial policy. Including the Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022 tax credits for nuclear development projects, starting at 30 percent and increasing to 50 percent if they meet stricter criteria. Yet these financial incentives did not work: despite these credits, there is still no rush to build new reactors or revive old sites. TMI is one of only two ongoing nuclear projects in the United States.
Fortunately, some lawmakers and officials are recognizing the real problem: excessive regulation.
President-elect Donald Trump has indicated that energy reforms are possible.the path to American energy dominanceThe Trump administration has also tasked the newly formed National Energy Council, a blue-ribbon committee designed to stimulate energy productionwith winning”the AI arms racewith China, emphasizing the importance of deals like the Constellation-Microsoft agreement. Chris Wright, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Energy, is “a”huge nuclear fanVivek Ramaswamy – who will help lead the Department of Government Efficiency, a non-governmental group that advises on potential budget cuts – has expressed his antipathy to the NRC, calling it ‘the wet blanketof innovation in the nuclear industry.
Pennsylvania lawmakers are also working to speed up the regulatory process. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro asked that PJM Interconnection – the network operator for its state, twelve other northeastern states and the District of Columbia – is allowing TMI to skip the “regulatory queue.” Shapiro’s request emphasized “rapid access to projects that can quickly begin adding capacity to the electric grid.” Considering Constellation’s ambitious goal to bring TMI back online three yearstime is of the essence.
Shapiro’s urgency is understandable. In addition to adding reliable energy, project developers estimation that TMI will create 3,400 jobs (many of which are paying). 45 percent more than that of the state average salary), $3 billion in state and federal taxes, and a $16 billion boon to Pennsylvania’s GDP.
With the nation’s growing electricity consumption and increasingly fragile power grid, the United States faces a choice: build more reliable energy capacity or deindustrialize. The Jane Fondas of the world may welcome the latter, but the rest of the country would prefer to keep their homes warm this winter and air conditions steady this summer.
To do that we need more Three Mile Islands.