I was surprised to see Arizona all-green. I checked with an AI and here is the summary:
RPS: Repealed in 2024; no mandatory renewable energy target exists.
APS/CES: No formal Alternative Portfolio Standard or Clean Energy Standard is in place. The 2020 proposal for 100% carbon-free power by 2050 remains unbinding.
"Net Zero" by 2050: Arizona lacks a state-wide, enforceable "net zero" goal for emissions or electricity. Voluntary utility commitments (e.g., APS, TEP) target net zero by 2050, but these are not mandated by law.
On a related note, does 1BBB contain any changes to the 45Q tax credits for carbon capture and sequestration? While I don't think that stuffing CO2 in the ground is likely to cause harm in the same way that wind and solar installations can destabilize electrical grids, I do care that my tax dollars are being wasted (in my opinion) on industrial infrastructure that has about as much chance of influencing global climate as states achieving their net zero goals.
thanks for the extra detail on the impact of the bill. in the first place, at the very least the direction of travel is finally correct. government is incredibly messy, so getting it all right was always going to be impossible.
personally, I would like to see a reliability component attached to any new generation capacity, as that, alone, would seemingly solve the problem.
and have included "Restoring Gold Standard Science" in its place, which admittedly still applies to LNT:
Sec 4(a) "Employees shall not engage in scientific misconduct nor knowingly rely on information resulting from scientific misconduct."
which I think is grounds for terminating just about every employee of the NRC, as they all know it is pure nonsense, or radiation fractionating medical treatments would kill you. The misconduct that birthed it is thoroughly chronicled in the "History of LNT" series with Dr. Edward Calabrese:
The MAGA have agreed to ballon the debt limit up another 4 Trillion. (That's about $24,000 per American.) Republicans only worry about govt spending if Dems are the ones spending on infrastructure or keeping people alive. Republican's love national debt if the money goes to their sponsors. I guess I get a big tax break. I'd rather have USAID spreading US soft power, which is one thing I agree with Pentagon Planners on. I'd rather have a functioning country.
President Putin is very pleased with these changes, and I'm sure the mortgages on Trump Tower and Mar-a-lago will be renewed. .
As our closing noted, the Uniparty owns wrecking U.S. monetary and fiscal policy. Both the red and blue jersey wearers love national debt if the money goes to their sponsors.
We respectfully disagree that all USAID spending on soft power is money well spent vs. other priorities. And the country hasn't functioned anywhere close to optimally under either party or any leader at least since the turn of the century.
As to Russian mortgages on Trump commercial assets, we have seen lots of internet crap suggesting such but nothing actually credible. On the other hand, we are supporting a war in a foreign country in which the last President's son was put on the BOD of a natural gas company, something in which he had as much expertise as dogs have in geology.
Great essay, Mental. Thank you. But it ignores the “elephant in the room.” To be successful, energy policy must be based on physics, not politics, and must not be subject to the four-year political cycle. What Washington giveth, Washington can take away.
While Republicans hold majorities in both houses, they would be wise to pass legislation that limits future government interventions now and over the next twenty years in sources having an energy density less than 100 watts per square meter. This limitation is intended to foster long-term sustainability and better resource management. It is not scapegoating wind or solar; it is merely acknowledging that these sources require far more resources that produce greater value in other sectors of the economy.
The legislation should also limit future government interventions to innovation research in energy storage, resources having energy density greater than 100 watts per square meter, grid management and strengthening, and, lastly, the development of nuclear power, including waste management. These features would also be protected from party interference for the next twenty years, is intended to recognize the need for on-going research into efficiencies, pollutant removals, and production processes. By providing incentives for nuclear power, it encourages the development of low carbon energy sources.
Remember “Blazing Saddles?” “Gentlemen, we’ve got to do something to protect our phony-baloney jobs.” This legislation would certainly do that, and by taking energy off the table for the next twenty years or so, maybe it would allow Congress to work on real problems and not just get re-elected! In the battle between platitudes and physics, physics remains undefeated.
For those of us who believe we have to lift 7 billion up to our living standards and continuing up the energy density curve (vs. going backwards...) is the only way to do so with less externalities per unit of growth/output, an energy density floor and a 20 year horizon is a very interesting idea.
And anyone who hangs around here as long as you have and closes with a Doomberg masterpiece is alright by us. ;)
Given the increasing urgency of climate goals, do you see any viable pathways for states or private sector actors to continue pushing renewable projects despite these federal setbacks? Or is this bill effectively locking in natural gas and nuclear as the dominant energy sources for the foreseeable future?
Interesting question, haven't thought about it given how recent the bill is and with the Senate to determine final outcome.
First reaction is, some larger states can try with state tax incentives but we wonder if they could have the scale necessary to matter. Private sector actors can and probably will try, and there is no shortage of philanthropic green capital and even some that is profit oriented who won't give up on the "energy transition" easily.
But, if passed as written, it'll be a steep hill to climb. And a wet one covered in slick mud at that.
I believe that without federal subsidies the renewable energy industry will grow at a much slower pace but it will not kill the industry.
States east of the Mississippi River will not be able to come anywhere near their renewable energy goals as they have much less solar and wind resources. My guess is that those states will quietly phase out their renewable requirements and/or expand them to include nuclear and natural gas.
Solar will remain financially viable in the Southwest, hydro will remain financially viable in the Northwest, and wind will remain financially viable in the Great Plains.
So, yes, the American electrical grid will be based largely on natural gas, nuclear and hydro for the foreseeable future. The only unknown is whether those three sources will be able to remove coal from the mix.
It will kill the endless growth focused on "installed capacity" at all costs.
We will happily use this keyboard to roast states who try to pivot with their RPS by pretending nuclear and natural gas are "renewable". "Clean" maybe, but renewable, sorry, no dice.
Solar will hit a saturation point in the SW and wind in the Great Plains. We think that will likely be determined in relation to synchronous spinning generation (we are not utility engineers) requirements as much as financial viability, per se.
Hydro is renewable and isn't going anywhere. On the other hand, civil engineering professors with spreadsheets like Stanford's Mark Jacobson are fooling themselves to think that we can expand or replace existing hydro turbines in existing projects by a factor of 10 and build lots more of them. Not gonna happen.
Great article, Mental. Continuing with your Caddyshack reference, the Trump administration just told the "ruinable" industry that regarding subsidies and tax benefits they will, "get nothing and like it."
Excellent piece. I’d been waiting for someone I trust to do a summary even a dumb engineer can understand. Thanks!
Poor solar Abby! Deep in her pack of lies I smell the real issue. “I’m going to lose my phony-baloney Job”.
All that worry about new data centers! To run a medium size data center with solar and batteries would require 8 sq. Miles of panels and cost $2B. The data center people will solve this. Those people know how to get permits.
I wonder if the blue states, even though they are broke, will attempt to keep things going through state funded subsidies or extremely high utility rates. Look for $2/kwh in California
Thanks. We don't think the states can carry that burden, b/c of how it translates into electricity costs and consequences for residential electricity rates and industry. Would they be energy blind enough to try? That is the question.
Let’s hope you are right. The on peak residential rate in San Diego can hit $1.16 per kWh the decimal point is in the right place. The power bill is typically more than rent. I don’t think California will give up. Don’t know about the others but California won't go down easy.
With the start construction within 60 days provision, the California interconnection queue will disappear. Virtually none of the queued projects can be online before 2030.
I was talking with Gene Nelson of GreenNuke about the "mission impossible" aspects of so called renewables in relation to grid inertia.
A "renewable" based grid is unsustainable without the inertia from fossil, nuclear or hydro always running in the background... witness Spain and Portugal !
Yes, exactly.....and even if it were possible to maintain inertia, there is the issue of 15 to 20 year lifetimes and massive disposal and decommission costs...
The First Law of Thermodynamics teaches:
"Energy cannot be created or destroyed or RENEWED, only transformed (!)".
What happens to all the solar systems installed for free by companies that harvested the tax credits from California homeowners now? Homeowner has just gotten a free system which reverts to them?
Newsom and the California Legislature already destroyed the ability of homeowners to sell electricity back to the grid by lowering payback rates to a few pennies a KWH. A favor repaid to PG&E which is a major donor to Newsom, his party and his wife's girls self esteem video hustle.
Other favors to them via forcing electrification, plus obedience to the Climacult:
His appointees on California Air Resources Board set to add .65 cents a gallon additional tax on gasoline July first. And, in 2026 and 2027, for a total of $1.95 added to nation's highest gasoline taxes. Driving refineries, 2 for sure, out of the state, plue Chevron maybe closing 2 more after they move headquarters out of state, nice way to boost PG&E stock values.
Marin… as in Marin county? So glad I left. I explain the ridiculous anti robinhood scheme to have poor people subsidize the rich, again, for the roof top solar scam in Robert Bryce’s movie Juice. Take a look.
When Newsome runs the refineries out of California, what’s the plan? Don’t say vote for a republican because that cannot happen.
The Democrat policies have driven PG&E into bankruptcy twice. They are very close to #3. They can no longer get financing for grid upgrades. If you think the government is doing them favors now, wait till you have to bail them out again. You are still paying for number 1. PG&E stock is about $8. If the government is propping it up they are doing a typical government job of it
I’m not thrilled with Washington state’s “green” energy plans (or lack thereof). The same watermelons (green on the outside red on the inside) pushing these policies are the same ones calling for removal of the lower Snake River dams (nominally to save salmon), would close Columbia Generating Station (aka WNP-2) in a heartbeat, and approve of covering the Horse Heaven Hills in windmills against staunch local opposition. Shut down existing coal and natural gas, there isn’t enough energy left, and “green” can’t get built out fast enough with or without changes in subsidies.
We understand conservation-oriented environmentalists wanting to preserve ecosystems in that beautiful state (and everywhere).
We have lifelong passions in the outdoors that depend on ecosystem health and preservation.
But there are anti-Industrial, anti-Capitalism, anti-growth, anti-human misanthropes among us. Some of it is ignorance, some of it is malevolence.
We don't get to proper balance between human prosperity and environmental preservation in energy, environmental and economic policy until we cleave off the malevolent among western "environmentalists". Nuclear is going to help. It's a great litmus test, and natural dividing line between the simply ignorant and the malevolent hiding in green sheep's clothing.
It’s interesting that residential solar tax credits get eliminated in 2025, but commercial renewables credits are extended through 2028. Just in time to give hope that the fragile balance of power in Congress shifts back to the left. And the transferability of renewable tax credits are extended through 2027. My suspicion is that financialzing the tradable tax credits is what gave legs to the whole renewables scam. The very powerful and wealthy people who run things have reduced the American economy to the trading of various paper “assets” at the same time they have eviscerated the production economy. The timing of the repeals is exactly backward in my opinion.
Could be. But given who makes the sausage and the depth of their expertise, we'll default to the assumption that it was just a compromise date given projects and subsidies in the pipeline and the need to shut off the financial spigot sooner rather than later.
But the financialization of these credits is a very real thing, and we don't see it as a positive.
One possible way to expedite/bypass the NEPA and NRC LNT review process delays is to have the DOD acquire the sites of retired coal plant through eminent domain and partner with private industry to site nuclear power plants where coal plants used to operate. There are over 150 such sites and each of them already has established utility scale grid interconnections and sources of cooling water. They are located near load consuming centers and are all brownfield industrial sites. DOD applications of nuclear energy are exempt from NRC review, and NEPA review on brownfield coal sites should be considerably easier than on any greenfield site. See the attached link to a Google map I created showing the location of retired coal plants in comparison to the areas of wind and solar potential. The coal sites are actually where the population/energy consumption is located.
Great map, well done! If you were to overlay your map on NERC and other utility industry reports' maps of which Regional Transmission Operators (RTOs) are precariously close to winter and summer capacity shortfalls, then add the scheduled coal-fired power plant closings as well, it would be a visually compelling story and a good use of the work you've already done. (As in "hello, is this thing on? These are the sites with high voltage transmission infrastructure, close to load centers, where the RTO's and regulators already know they have built in capacity shortfalls in baseload..... ")
Former Navy nuke and GA Tech PhD Cal Abel and many others have been suggesting as much for a decade now. We like the idea but until the "N" word became speakable in political circles 3 years ago it seemed like a long-shot. Now, just more like a medium shot! But we definitely like it!
Feel free to share the map with your broader audience and add any overlays you think add to the case. I have done overlays with population density heat maps which show a very good fit for building power where it is needed and used. Another feature of the map worth noting is that you can zoom in on the pinned sites and see the switchyard infrastructure, cooling water source, and scale of the site perfectly suited for large scale nuclear or multiple SMRs. Many of the sites have already been cleared with the old coal plant infrastructure already demolished and removed. They are ideal for fast tracking new nuclear plant construction.
I was surprised to see Arizona all-green. I checked with an AI and here is the summary:
RPS: Repealed in 2024; no mandatory renewable energy target exists.
APS/CES: No formal Alternative Portfolio Standard or Clean Energy Standard is in place. The 2020 proposal for 100% carbon-free power by 2050 remains unbinding.
"Net Zero" by 2050: Arizona lacks a state-wide, enforceable "net zero" goal for emissions or electricity. Voluntary utility commitments (e.g., APS, TEP) target net zero by 2050, but these are not mandated by law.
On a related note, does 1BBB contain any changes to the 45Q tax credits for carbon capture and sequestration? While I don't think that stuffing CO2 in the ground is likely to cause harm in the same way that wind and solar installations can destabilize electrical grids, I do care that my tax dollars are being wasted (in my opinion) on industrial infrastructure that has about as much chance of influencing global climate as states achieving their net zero goals.
Maybe this event will put the nail in the cofn of the perception that EVs will fix global warming. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-04/ship-carrying-evs-abandoned-in-pacific-after-catching-fire
thanks for the extra detail on the impact of the bill. in the first place, at the very least the direction of travel is finally correct. government is incredibly messy, so getting it all right was always going to be impossible.
personally, I would like to see a reliability component attached to any new generation capacity, as that, alone, would seemingly solve the problem.
Excellent reporting. Attaboy, Mental.
You are missing one of the 4 EOs:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/deploying-advanced-nuclear-reactor-technologies-for-national-security/
and have included "Restoring Gold Standard Science" in its place, which admittedly still applies to LNT:
Sec 4(a) "Employees shall not engage in scientific misconduct nor knowingly rely on information resulting from scientific misconduct."
which I think is grounds for terminating just about every employee of the NRC, as they all know it is pure nonsense, or radiation fractionating medical treatments would kill you. The misconduct that birthed it is thoroughly chronicled in the "History of LNT" series with Dr. Edward Calabrese:
https://hps.org/hpspublications/historylnt/episodeguide.html
Didn't see restoring gold standard science section 4 a
Great point regarding scientific misconduct and LNT
Soon as we’re done walking the dog will correct and credit you for pointing it out in the correction!
Thanks for catching the mistake and making us better!
The MAGA have agreed to ballon the debt limit up another 4 Trillion. (That's about $24,000 per American.) Republicans only worry about govt spending if Dems are the ones spending on infrastructure or keeping people alive. Republican's love national debt if the money goes to their sponsors. I guess I get a big tax break. I'd rather have USAID spreading US soft power, which is one thing I agree with Pentagon Planners on. I'd rather have a functioning country.
President Putin is very pleased with these changes, and I'm sure the mortgages on Trump Tower and Mar-a-lago will be renewed. .
As our closing noted, the Uniparty owns wrecking U.S. monetary and fiscal policy. Both the red and blue jersey wearers love national debt if the money goes to their sponsors.
We respectfully disagree that all USAID spending on soft power is money well spent vs. other priorities. And the country hasn't functioned anywhere close to optimally under either party or any leader at least since the turn of the century.
As to Russian mortgages on Trump commercial assets, we have seen lots of internet crap suggesting such but nothing actually credible. On the other hand, we are supporting a war in a foreign country in which the last President's son was put on the BOD of a natural gas company, something in which he had as much expertise as dogs have in geology.
Hunter had all the necessary skills for the job, it’s just not the job you are referring to
😎
Great essay, Mental. Thank you. But it ignores the “elephant in the room.” To be successful, energy policy must be based on physics, not politics, and must not be subject to the four-year political cycle. What Washington giveth, Washington can take away.
While Republicans hold majorities in both houses, they would be wise to pass legislation that limits future government interventions now and over the next twenty years in sources having an energy density less than 100 watts per square meter. This limitation is intended to foster long-term sustainability and better resource management. It is not scapegoating wind or solar; it is merely acknowledging that these sources require far more resources that produce greater value in other sectors of the economy.
The legislation should also limit future government interventions to innovation research in energy storage, resources having energy density greater than 100 watts per square meter, grid management and strengthening, and, lastly, the development of nuclear power, including waste management. These features would also be protected from party interference for the next twenty years, is intended to recognize the need for on-going research into efficiencies, pollutant removals, and production processes. By providing incentives for nuclear power, it encourages the development of low carbon energy sources.
Remember “Blazing Saddles?” “Gentlemen, we’ve got to do something to protect our phony-baloney jobs.” This legislation would certainly do that, and by taking energy off the table for the next twenty years or so, maybe it would allow Congress to work on real problems and not just get re-elected! In the battle between platitudes and physics, physics remains undefeated.
Thanks!
For those of us who believe we have to lift 7 billion up to our living standards and continuing up the energy density curve (vs. going backwards...) is the only way to do so with less externalities per unit of growth/output, an energy density floor and a 20 year horizon is a very interesting idea.
And anyone who hangs around here as long as you have and closes with a Doomberg masterpiece is alright by us. ;)
Given the increasing urgency of climate goals, do you see any viable pathways for states or private sector actors to continue pushing renewable projects despite these federal setbacks? Or is this bill effectively locking in natural gas and nuclear as the dominant energy sources for the foreseeable future?
Interesting question, haven't thought about it given how recent the bill is and with the Senate to determine final outcome.
First reaction is, some larger states can try with state tax incentives but we wonder if they could have the scale necessary to matter. Private sector actors can and probably will try, and there is no shortage of philanthropic green capital and even some that is profit oriented who won't give up on the "energy transition" easily.
But, if passed as written, it'll be a steep hill to climb. And a wet one covered in slick mud at that.
I believe that without federal subsidies the renewable energy industry will grow at a much slower pace but it will not kill the industry.
States east of the Mississippi River will not be able to come anywhere near their renewable energy goals as they have much less solar and wind resources. My guess is that those states will quietly phase out their renewable requirements and/or expand them to include nuclear and natural gas.
Solar will remain financially viable in the Southwest, hydro will remain financially viable in the Northwest, and wind will remain financially viable in the Great Plains.
So, yes, the American electrical grid will be based largely on natural gas, nuclear and hydro for the foreseeable future. The only unknown is whether those three sources will be able to remove coal from the mix.
It will kill the endless growth focused on "installed capacity" at all costs.
We will happily use this keyboard to roast states who try to pivot with their RPS by pretending nuclear and natural gas are "renewable". "Clean" maybe, but renewable, sorry, no dice.
Solar will hit a saturation point in the SW and wind in the Great Plains. We think that will likely be determined in relation to synchronous spinning generation (we are not utility engineers) requirements as much as financial viability, per se.
Hydro is renewable and isn't going anywhere. On the other hand, civil engineering professors with spreadsheets like Stanford's Mark Jacobson are fooling themselves to think that we can expand or replace existing hydro turbines in existing projects by a factor of 10 and build lots more of them. Not gonna happen.
Great article, Mental. Continuing with your Caddyshack reference, the Trump administration just told the "ruinable" industry that regarding subsidies and tax benefits they will, "get nothing and like it."
Nailed it! > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuNJq_wI1ns
:)
What a wonderful scene. hah!
Excellent piece. I’d been waiting for someone I trust to do a summary even a dumb engineer can understand. Thanks!
Poor solar Abby! Deep in her pack of lies I smell the real issue. “I’m going to lose my phony-baloney Job”.
All that worry about new data centers! To run a medium size data center with solar and batteries would require 8 sq. Miles of panels and cost $2B. The data center people will solve this. Those people know how to get permits.
I wonder if the blue states, even though they are broke, will attempt to keep things going through state funded subsidies or extremely high utility rates. Look for $2/kwh in California
Thanks. We don't think the states can carry that burden, b/c of how it translates into electricity costs and consequences for residential electricity rates and industry. Would they be energy blind enough to try? That is the question.
Let’s hope you are right. The on peak residential rate in San Diego can hit $1.16 per kWh the decimal point is in the right place. The power bill is typically more than rent. I don’t think California will give up. Don’t know about the others but California won't go down easy.
With the start construction within 60 days provision, the California interconnection queue will disappear. Virtually none of the queued projects can be online before 2030.
Thank you for this!
I was talking with Gene Nelson of GreenNuke about the "mission impossible" aspects of so called renewables in relation to grid inertia.
A "renewable" based grid is unsustainable without the inertia from fossil, nuclear or hydro always running in the background... witness Spain and Portugal !
This is the issue. It may be theoretically possible with synchronous condensers and such, but we don't see it being practical at scale.
Yes, exactly.....and even if it were possible to maintain inertia, there is the issue of 15 to 20 year lifetimes and massive disposal and decommission costs...
The First Law of Thermodynamics teaches:
"Energy cannot be created or destroyed or RENEWED, only transformed (!)".
There is no such thing as renewables.
Regards and thanks for the good article .
TC
Thanks for your comments!
What happens to all the solar systems installed for free by companies that harvested the tax credits from California homeowners now? Homeowner has just gotten a free system which reverts to them?
Newsom and the California Legislature already destroyed the ability of homeowners to sell electricity back to the grid by lowering payback rates to a few pennies a KWH. A favor repaid to PG&E which is a major donor to Newsom, his party and his wife's girls self esteem video hustle.
Other favors to them via forcing electrification, plus obedience to the Climacult:
His appointees on California Air Resources Board set to add .65 cents a gallon additional tax on gasoline July first. And, in 2026 and 2027, for a total of $1.95 added to nation's highest gasoline taxes. Driving refineries, 2 for sure, out of the state, plue Chevron maybe closing 2 more after they move headquarters out of state, nice way to boost PG&E stock values.
Nice description here:
https://wrenews.com/new-book-details-newsoms-financial-backing-by-pacific-gas-electric/
New word to add to your lexicon, inspired by Newsom:
Sustainabullshit
Marin… as in Marin county? So glad I left. I explain the ridiculous anti robinhood scheme to have poor people subsidize the rich, again, for the roof top solar scam in Robert Bryce’s movie Juice. Take a look.
When Newsome runs the refineries out of California, what’s the plan? Don’t say vote for a republican because that cannot happen.
The Democrat policies have driven PG&E into bankruptcy twice. They are very close to #3. They can no longer get financing for grid upgrades. If you think the government is doing them favors now, wait till you have to bail them out again. You are still paying for number 1. PG&E stock is about $8. If the government is propping it up they are doing a typical government job of it
"Keep PG&E stock up" think life ring in water, not hot air balloon.
You better hope it works because if it doesn't and Bankruptcy #3 happens you get the bill....again. You'll yearn for those good old days of $.050 kwh.
We appreciated that scene in Juice, Lee.
Thanks!
Your question about those CA residential is a good one.
We have used the term "sustainabilchemy" for more than a decade before starting this publication (and in it multiple times as well).
I’m not thrilled with Washington state’s “green” energy plans (or lack thereof). The same watermelons (green on the outside red on the inside) pushing these policies are the same ones calling for removal of the lower Snake River dams (nominally to save salmon), would close Columbia Generating Station (aka WNP-2) in a heartbeat, and approve of covering the Horse Heaven Hills in windmills against staunch local opposition. Shut down existing coal and natural gas, there isn’t enough energy left, and “green” can’t get built out fast enough with or without changes in subsidies.
We understand conservation-oriented environmentalists wanting to preserve ecosystems in that beautiful state (and everywhere).
We have lifelong passions in the outdoors that depend on ecosystem health and preservation.
But there are anti-Industrial, anti-Capitalism, anti-growth, anti-human misanthropes among us. Some of it is ignorance, some of it is malevolence.
We don't get to proper balance between human prosperity and environmental preservation in energy, environmental and economic policy until we cleave off the malevolent among western "environmentalists". Nuclear is going to help. It's a great litmus test, and natural dividing line between the simply ignorant and the malevolent hiding in green sheep's clothing.
It’s interesting that residential solar tax credits get eliminated in 2025, but commercial renewables credits are extended through 2028. Just in time to give hope that the fragile balance of power in Congress shifts back to the left. And the transferability of renewable tax credits are extended through 2027. My suspicion is that financialzing the tradable tax credits is what gave legs to the whole renewables scam. The very powerful and wealthy people who run things have reduced the American economy to the trading of various paper “assets” at the same time they have eviscerated the production economy. The timing of the repeals is exactly backward in my opinion.
Could be. But given who makes the sausage and the depth of their expertise, we'll default to the assumption that it was just a compromise date given projects and subsidies in the pipeline and the need to shut off the financial spigot sooner rather than later.
But the financialization of these credits is a very real thing, and we don't see it as a positive.
One possible way to expedite/bypass the NEPA and NRC LNT review process delays is to have the DOD acquire the sites of retired coal plant through eminent domain and partner with private industry to site nuclear power plants where coal plants used to operate. There are over 150 such sites and each of them already has established utility scale grid interconnections and sources of cooling water. They are located near load consuming centers and are all brownfield industrial sites. DOD applications of nuclear energy are exempt from NRC review, and NEPA review on brownfield coal sites should be considerably easier than on any greenfield site. See the attached link to a Google map I created showing the location of retired coal plants in comparison to the areas of wind and solar potential. The coal sites are actually where the population/energy consumption is located.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1QBresJWwMzri0sygk5l-4j01xnP1lXU&ll=37.796809024153326%2C-95.35569428737948&z=5
Great map, well done! If you were to overlay your map on NERC and other utility industry reports' maps of which Regional Transmission Operators (RTOs) are precariously close to winter and summer capacity shortfalls, then add the scheduled coal-fired power plant closings as well, it would be a visually compelling story and a good use of the work you've already done. (As in "hello, is this thing on? These are the sites with high voltage transmission infrastructure, close to load centers, where the RTO's and regulators already know they have built in capacity shortfalls in baseload..... ")
Former Navy nuke and GA Tech PhD Cal Abel and many others have been suggesting as much for a decade now. We like the idea but until the "N" word became speakable in political circles 3 years ago it seemed like a long-shot. Now, just more like a medium shot! But we definitely like it!
Feel free to share the map with your broader audience and add any overlays you think add to the case. I have done overlays with population density heat maps which show a very good fit for building power where it is needed and used. Another feature of the map worth noting is that you can zoom in on the pinned sites and see the switchyard infrastructure, cooling water source, and scale of the site perfectly suited for large scale nuclear or multiple SMRs. Many of the sites have already been cleared with the old coal plant infrastructure already demolished and removed. They are ideal for fast tracking new nuclear plant construction.