This Could Be Really Good News

 A frustrating aspect of climate policy has been synching up the need for action with the appetite for disruption and the restraint of cost. 

Put another way: We have to put less carbon in the atmosphere. Full stop. There are myriad ways of doing that, but there will be some sort of trade off, because you are - by definition - altering the status quo. So, we have to do "something," there are a lot somethings we could do, but we have to balance the degree to which people want to upend their lives and how much we are willing to pay.

For instance, there is a tiny fraction of climate activists who want to destroy market capitalism, because it caused climate change. That won't get anywhere, and similarly, telling Americans they can't eat beef anymore would be a non-starter. The best climate policies are largely invisible in terms of their everyday impact on people. Wind and solar farms - or even rooftop solar - are largely invisible to your everyday life.

All of this is to say, if we really cared about climate change, the best solution in my mind has always been a massive global investment in nuclear energy.

In 2021, the US's energy production fell along these lines: 
- 20% renewable
- 19% nuclear
- 22% coal
- 38% natural gas

That 60% of hydrocarbon electrical generation is - in many ways - the low hanging fruit of climate policy. Natural gas is reasonably "clean," but it's still producing greenhouse gases. If you could replace 100% of coal and natural gas with nuclear power, you'd be in pretty good shape, without requiring people to drive EVs or return to some sort of paleolithic lifestyle living in a yurt.

That's why this is potentially really good news. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is notoriously difficult to work with and almost never approve new nuclear power plants. The reasoning is one of institutional motivations. If you feel your primary goal is to make sure that there is absolutely no nuclear accidents, then not having any nuclear power plants is a pretty good way to make that happen. That's substantively different from thinking, we need abundant but safe nuclear power.

The move to what is called Small Modular Reactors is much bigger news for climate than the miniscule gains in fusion power. This is an existing technology that can be scaled up in the next decade. The current module can produce 50-60 megawatts. SMRs do not produce the same heat as current nuclear reactors, which makes the potential for meltdowns far lower. They can also be "mass produced" in ways that allow for rapid scaling up.

Even with the falling cost of renewables, there will need to be a stable power grid for when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow. Right now, that gap is filled with natural gas, but there's no reason why the grid can't be nuclear with renewables the addition. Additionally, you could use an SMR to do energy expensive processes like direct air capture or water desalination.

Fears of nuclear meltdowns are mostly overblown, but that has led to an overcorrection towards safety that has led to an ineffectual response to climate change.

This could start to change that.