Energy policy is one of the most polarizing issues in the 2024 election, with each candidate’s party line differing significantly, including the policies presented in the presidential campaign manifestos by Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Trump.
Both Trump and Harris support nuclear energy, but for different reasons.
Democrats generally support the Biden administration’s emphasis on renewable energy. Harris has also stated that modernizing energy infrastructure and transitioning from fossil fuels to carbon-free power are key to mitigating climate change and remaining competitive in the electrified 21st-century economy.
Trump’s platform reflects the Republican belief that the Biden administration’s push for green energy hinders more cost-effective oil and gas development, disrupts electricity and fuel markets, exacerbates inflation, and increases reliance on Chinese manufacturing materials. They view this sudden and forced transition as ideological rather than based on economic principles.
There is almost no common ground between the two parties, but nuclear energy as part of the energy mix does receive support from both parties.
This rare consensus can be seen in the energy policy plans of Trump and Harris. Both support expanding nuclear energy, albeit for different reasons.
In late August, Trump expressed support for developing small modular reactors, stating that he would expedite the approval of new utility-scale power plants.
During a stop in Potterville, Michigan on August 29, Trump said, “From day one, I will approve…new power plants, new reactors, and cut red tape.”
Three days earlier, Trump told podcaster Shawn Ryan that nuclear energy is crucial for sustaining an expanding grid and providing power for AI development.
He said, “If we’re going to be a player – just in this industry – you need twice the amount of energy we’re producing now. Nuclear right now has become very good, very safe, you can build smaller nuclear plants.”
This essentially summarizes the current government’s goal for nuclear energy, rooted in sustainable carbon-free power generation. Harris, as Biden’s successor, also encourages this while continuing the transition to renewable energy.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021, CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, and the IRA encourage the development of new nuclear technologies and expand existing capacity.
Harris cast a decisive vote for the IRA, which provides 30% investment tax credits for nuclear projects, along with $6 billion in loans, grants, and tax incentives to maintain the operation of aging nuclear plants and restart some closed plants.
According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, there are currently 94 nuclear reactors in operation at 55 power plants in the U.S., with nuclear power accounting for 18.6% of the country’s electricity generation as of 2023.
Most of these nuclear plants were built between the 1970s and 1990s, with an average operational lifespan exceeding 40 years. Since 2016, the U.S. has only had one new reactor come online, the fourth reactor at the Vogtle plant in Georgia, which began operating in April of this year. The project exceeded its budget by $1.6 billion and was six years behind schedule.
The government’s Nuclear Energy Project Management and Delivery Working Group is advancing efforts to convert existing and retired coal plants into nuclear plants, providing subsidies to reduce new plant costs by 35%, and working with private businesses to commercialize new nuclear technologies under the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear initiative.
In 2024, Congress nearly unanimously passed the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act and the ADVANCE Act, which aim to triple domestic nuclear production by 2050 through providing incentives and tax credits for various technologies, including small modular reactors.
The new laws in 2024 expedite licensing processes, reduce application fees, and review regulations to eliminate unnecessary restrictions on nuclear production.
The bipartisan consensus on these new regulations reflects a growing public appreciation for nuclear energy. According to a Pew Research Center survey in August, of 8,638 respondents, 56% prefer nuclear energy, including 49% of Democrats, surpassing solar and wind energy, with a 12% increase since 2020.
Harris pledges to maintain the momentum of renewable, carbon-free power development, while Trump vows to accelerate the nuclear industry’s growth, reflecting increasing public support for nuclear energy. However, both candidates have not provided detailed plans.
Alexander Stevens, Manager of Energy Policy and Communications at the American Energy Alliance, notes that the common ground between the two presidential candidates is the view that the federal government plays an overly significant role in regulating the industry.
He told the Epoch Times, “Both candidates have followed the model of nuclear energy development from the past 40 to 50 years.” Stevens believes that when it comes to nuclear energy, the federal government should play a “significant role.”
Representing 12 U.S. uranium mining and processing companies, Uranium Producers of America operates 15 in-situ uranium recovery plants nationwide, including five that reopened following the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act passed in May.
Scott Melbye, Vice President of Uranium Energy Corp., told the Epoch Times that UPA does not endorse any presidential candidate but has suggestions for how the next administration can assist in uranium mining to drive nuclear energy development.
He said, “While there is current support in the U.S. for nuclear energy development from the public and both parties, there are voices on the left that oppose domestic mining of minerals such as uranium, copper, nickel, lithium, and cobalt, which are crucial for advancing the economy.”
Melbye noted that the regulation of uranium mining by the government is particularly complex, involving the Department of Energy, Department of Defense, Department of the Interior, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Environmental Protection Agency. Even though both presidential candidates support nuclear energy, states typically hold key regulatory authority. This reality was emphasized at the National Conference of State Legislatures annual legislative summit held in early August.
Senior Project Manager at the Nuclear Energy Institute, Kati Austgen, mentioned at the summit that the industry sees states eliminating barriers and encouraging investment to adapt to new reactor types.
Austgen stated that although 300 nuclear-related bills were introduced in 45 states over the past two years, there are currently no utility-scale projects in the U.S. She noted that without support from state legislators and regulatory bodies, the president and Congress cannot change this status quo.
Federal Congressman Carl Albrecht of Utah GOP pointed out that focusing on licensing reform alone cannot resolve the issues of state and federal regulations, and promoting nuclear energy development means loosening mining regulations. While the Department of Energy claims to support mining regulations, it appears committed to thwarting them.
In 1980, the U.S. produced and processed 90% of the uranium used as fuel for nuclear plants. By 2021, only 5% of the uranium used by U.S. nuclear plants was domestically sourced.
Albrecht stated, “There is still vast uranium reserves on the Colorado Plateau locked up on federal lands. We need to convey to the Department of the Interior that if we are going to move toward nuclear, we need to mine and process uranium.”
Melbye concurs, emphasizing that this is the crux that the next administration must address.
He said, “First, if we want to achieve further self-sufficiency, we need to provide licensing and permits for new operations in the cumbersome regulatory process; secondly, we can continue to rely on Western uranium suppliers like Canada and Australia to meet some of our energy needs.”
Melbye stated that the U.S. nuclear industry consumes 45 million pounds of uranium annually. When the U.S. led global uranium production, it could supply 40 million pounds of uranium annually to domestic facilities.
Citing a survey conducted by UPA, Melbye shared, “With supportive policies and market conditions, the U.S. uranium industry could restore production to an annual level of around 20-25 million pounds over the next five years, primarily from existing permitted operations.”
He added that the next administration could further accelerate nuclear energy development by tightening “tedious intervenor lawsuits that delay (uranium mining) projects for years,” or by tightening agencies’ “excessive regulatory authority to prevent them from interfering in industries they may ideologically oppose.”
Melbye emphasized that Trump or Harris must end the Biden administration’s “designation through wilderness withdrawal, removing millions of acres of federal land from development.”
“Such policies are typically implemented without consultation with local relevant groups and must be stopped, with regulatory procedures further streamlined,” he said.