President Biden has been bullish on nuclear production. Last month, the Biden administration announced a plan to triple capacity by 2050. And there’s a chance the Trump administration could follow through on that plan.
It will, however, take convincing. Trump has been ambivalent about nuclear energy, as Bloomberg columnist Liam Denning recently pointed out. The president-elect supported nuclear energy during his first term and has described it as “very powerful, very good.” But he has also slammed it.
As recently as October, while appearing on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Trump said building nuclear reactors was “too big and too complex and too expensive.” He also voiced concerns about how safe they really are. “There’s a little danger to nuclear,” he added. “You know, we had some really bad nuclear.” But more and more research shows that nuclear power has become one of the safest forms of energy.
The president-elect also intends to undo Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which hands out considerable subsidies to the nuclear energy industry. According to a report by ClearView Energy Partners, those subsidies specifically might now be on the chopping block.
Democrats in Congress should fight hard to keep the subsidies. And they should fight even harder to increase them. Going big on nuclear energy, which produces almost no carbon emissions and is more reliable and efficient than wind and solar, is the best way to reduce the environmental damage that will arise from Trump’s second term. Democrats might not like it, but it’s smart politics. Trying to convince the incoming administration to back renewables will be a losing battle — as absurd as attempting to talk a cattle rancher into becoming vegan. Democrats should instead direct their efforts toward giving nuclear energy a boost.
But it has to be done strategically. Democrats must make their case in a way that resonates with Trump and his base. That means stressing three big benefits that building out nuclear would bring the United States.
The first is economic. The president-elect says that he wants to usher in a “new golden age of American prosperity.” Nuclear energy can help make that vision a reality. Already the US nuclear industry contributes $63 billion a year to the American economy and employs nearly half a million people. And that’s all with only 54 power plants across the country.
What’s more, nuclear jobs are the best-paid jobs in the electric power production sector, according to written testimony to the US Senate from Amy Roma, a founding member of the Nuclear Energy and National Security Coalition at the Atlantic Council. The average nuclear worker earns 22 percent more per hour than the average coal worker and 25 percent more than the average gas worker.
Trump is right when he says that it’s onerous to build nuclear reactors — but it’s well worth the investment. They would end up producing affordable electricity for longer than other types of plants — up to 80 years compared with 45 for a typical coal plant and 30 for a typical gas plant. Reactors can be located almost anywhere too, which means that they could create quality jobs wherever they’re most needed.
How could an economic populist like Trump turn his back on such a good deal?
The second benefit: Nuclear power can make the United States energy-independent. Trump has pledged to “bring back a pro-American energy policy.” Nuclear energy fits the bill. Companies like Westinghouse and GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (an alliance between General Electric and Japan’s Hitachi) are already highly skilled at building reactors.
Most reactors run on uranium. At present, the United States imports 95 percent of what it uses to generate nuclear power. But that doesn’t have to be the case. About 1 percent of global uranium deposits are located in the United States. That number doesn’t sound like much, but it could help expand the country’s nuclear program if uranium mining is ramped up. There are signs this is beginning to happen. New mines have opened in Utah and Arizona just this year.
Even if the United States can’t produce domestically all the uranium it needs, the supply chain doesn’t have to threaten American national security. Two reliable US allies, Canada and Australia, together have nearly 40 percent of the global uranium deposits. Even better, next-generation nuclear reactors could run on thorium. And the United States has the third-largest amount of thorium in the world, behind India and Brazil.
Third, nuclear power will help reinforce the United States’ position as a global leader. Trump has been clear that he aims to establish “US energy dominance” worldwide. But that won’t be possible without dominating the global nuclear industry.
The demand for nuclear power is growing. At COP29 last month, 31 countries vowed to triple their nuclear capacity by 2050.
Many countries won’t be able to build and operate nuclear power plants themselves. America stands to reap huge rewards if it can step in to help, but it needs to up its game. At present, to borrow a favorite Trump word, the United States is a nuclear loser. The winner is Russia. It sells 60 percent of the world’s nuclear reactors. China is a close second — it has built nearly half of all reactors constructed since 2000.
This is bad news for the United States. Failing to capitalize on nuclear represents not only a loss of cash but also a loss of influence. Both Russia and China use nuclear energy to advance their interests around the world. Under Trump, the United States could start doing the same.
Theo Zenou is a historian and journalist who recently completed a doctorate at Cambridge University.