The Supreme Court Will Decide The American Nuclear Industry's Future
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments earlier this month regarding the legality of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) intent to license a high-level nuclear waste storage site in West Texas. This is a case with potentially seismic consequences. The suit, initiated by the state of Texas and Fasken Oil, a local company, alleges that the NRC is overstepping its authority by licensing the new facility. The storage of nuclear waste has been a controversial topic in the United States for decades. This court case may decide the future of America's civilian nuclear program and its green ambitions.
Created during an era of rapid nuclear expansion, the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) outlined a process for assessing nuclear waste sites and established how the government would regulate waste disposal. The legislation tasked the Department of Energy (DOE) with building and operating such facilities, making the NRC responsible for licensing all sites.
After an investigative period, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, was selected as the site for an American nuclear waste storage facility. During the search period, the Chornobyl disaster occurred in Ukraine, triggering fear in the public, timidity in the industry, and souring national views on nuclear power. Despite this development, the Yucca Mountain project pressed on. In 2002, Congress overruled objections to the plant brought by the state of Nevada.
Eight years later, with construction at Yucca incomplete, President Obama's Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that the administration was abandoning its plans to finish the waste storage facility. The DOE withdrew its licensing application for the site, declaring its intentions to find a more viable location and officially shutting down the project with haste and lack of documentation, which was subsequently criticized by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). US Government spent over 19 billion dollars on Yucca Mountain with zero results for the taxpayer.
Since then, American nuclear waste storage has remained in limbo. Nuclear reactor operators in the U.S. are forced to store all waste on-site using one of two methods. Waste is either cooled in water and stored underwater long-term or moved into barrels after initial cooling. Neither of these is a permanent solution. The lack of long-term storage options will inevitably create both practical and financial issues throughout the industry, driving up the cost of nuclear energy for all.
After being nearly off the table for the better part of two decades, big tech and the advent of artificial intelligence have revived the dialogue around nuclear power production and its associated waste. Many companies require abundant energy to power data centers, a phenomenon intensified by AI. In trying to meet climate-related goals, the search for large-scale clean power has led companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Google to invest in nuclear projects as a reliable, yet environmentally friendly option.
The proliferation of fast breeder recycling of spent fuel, already the norm in France and Russia, provides an opportunity to address these problems and make storage easier by reducing the quantities of leftover material. These reactors, recently endorsed by the Argonne National Laboratory, utilize nuclear waste from reactors as recycled fuel, bombarding them again to generate more energy. This reduces supply constraints from uranium, whose enrichment Russia dominates, and reduces the volume of materials that need long-term storage at facilities like Yucca Mountain. The downside is they produce plutonium – which, unlike conventional nuclear waste, can be weaponized.
Nuclear reactor production has been increasing, and in late 2024, the federal government announced plans to triple nuclear power production by 2050. Many states, including Texas, welcome the financial rewards of nuclear investment and see it as an industry that could stimulate their economies for years. However, this does not mean that nuclear waste storage has ceased to be an issue. In Texas, eight-year-old plans to create interim waste storage facilities came to the forefront while the debate over long-term facility options continued. The State of Texas opposed the planned use of the site in West Texas shortly after it was publicized in 2016, leading to a lengthy court battle that has now reached the Supreme Court.
The ramifications of this case could determine the American nuclear industry's approach to waste storage for the foreseeable future. If the court sides against the NRC and prevents the licensing of the facility, the legitimacy of any future sites can immediately be called into question.
At a time when nuclear energy is an increasingly pressing need, uncertainty about waste storage could hamper the expansion of the industry. Ruling against the NRC would also change how complaints can be brought against federal agencies and the reach that those agencies and other licensing bodies have in America.
Should the decision go the other way and the NRC prevail, the path forward will be smoother for nuclear power and the tech firms backing it. However, it will also hand more power to federal regulatory agencies at the expense of the states and localities affected by their decisions.
It is all about NIMBY (not in my backyard). Fears surrounding the dangers of transporting and storing radioactive material have led local governments to conclude that they do not want nuclear waste storage in their backyards. Nevertheless, the issue cannot remain unresolved if the U.S. is to capitalize on the growing demand for nuclear energy. America possesses the technical expertise and land necessary to store spent fuel safely, securely, and affordably.
The Supreme Court's final decision, expected in June, will significantly impact technology corporations, the nuclear energy industry, and federal agencies. At stake is nothing less than the future of America's nuclear power industry.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
35 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What it would take to convert a jet from Qatar into Air Force One to safely fly Trump
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump really wants to fly on an upgraded Air Force One — but making that happen could depend on whether he's willing to cut corners with security. As government lawyers sort out the legal arrangement for accepting a luxury jet from the Qatari royal family, another crucial conversation is unfolding about modifying the plane so it's safe for the American president. Installing capabilities equivalent to the decades-old 747s now used as Air Force One would almost certainly consign the project to a similar fate as Boeing's replacement initiative, which has been plagued by delays and cost overruns . Air Force Secretary Troy Meink told lawmakers Thursday that those security modifications would cost less than $400 million but provided no details. Satisfying Trump's desire to use the new plane before the end of his term could require leaving out some of those precautions, however. A White House official said Trump wants the Qatari jet ready as soon as possible while adhering to security standards. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, did not provide details on equipment issues or the timeline. Trump has survived two assassination attempts , and Iran allegedly also plotted to kill him, so he's well aware of the danger he faces. However, he seems willing to take some chances with security, particularly when it comes to communications. For example, he likes to keep his personal phone handy despite the threat of hacks. He boasted this week that the government got the jet 'for free,' saying, 'We need it as Air Force One until the other ones are done.' Here's a look at what it would take to make the Qatari plane into a presidential transport: What makes a plane worthy of being Air Force One? Air Force One is the call sign for any plane that's carrying the president. The first aircraft to get the designation was a propeller-powered C-54 Skymaster, which ferried Franklin D. Roosevelt to the Yalta Conference in 1945. It featured a conference room with a bulletproof window. Things are a lot more complicated these days. Boeing has spent years stripping down and rebuilding two 747s to replace the versions that have carried presidents for more than three decades. The project is slated to cost more than $5.3 billion and may not be finished before Trump leaves office. A 2021 report made public through the Freedom of Information Act outlines the unclassified requirements for the replacement 747s under construction. At the top of the list — survivability and communications. The government decided more than a decade ago that the new planes had to have four engines so they could remain airborne if one or two fail, said Deborah Lee James, who was Air Force secretary at the time. That creates a challenge because 747s are no longer manufactured, which could make spare parts harder to come by. Air Force One also has to have the highest level of classified communications, anti-jamming capabilities and external protections against foreign surveillance, so the president can securely command military forces and nuclear weapons during a national emergency. It's an extremely sensitive and complex system, including video, voice and data transmissions. James said there are anti-missile measures and shielding against radiation or an electromagnetic pulse that could be caused by a nuclear blast. 'The point is, it remains in flight no matter what,' she said. Will Trump want all the security bells and whistles? If the Qatari plane is retrofitted to presidential standards, it could cost $1.5 billion and take years, according to a U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide details that aren't publicly available. Testifying before Congress this week, Meink discounted such estimates, arguing that some of the costs associated with retrofitting the Qatari plane would have been spent anyway as the Air Force moves to build the long-delayed new presidential planes, including buying aircraft for training and to have spares available if needed. In response, Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., said that based on the contract costs for the planes that the Air Force is building, it would cost about $1 billion to strip down the Qatar plane, install encrypted communications, harden its defenses and make other required upgrades. James said simply redoing the wiring means 'you'd have to break that whole thing wide open and almost start from scratch.' Trump, as commander in chief, could waive some of these requirements. He could decide to skip shielding systems from an electromagnetic pulse, leaving his communications more vulnerable in case of a disaster but shaving time off the project. After all, Boeing has already scaled back its original plans for the new 747s. Their range was trimmed by 1,200 nautical miles, and the ability to refuel while airborne was scrapped. Paul Eckloff, a former leader of protection details at the Secret Service, expects the president would get the final say. 'The Secret Service's job is to plan for and mitigate risk,' he said. 'It can never eliminate it.' If Trump does waive some requirements, James said that should be kept under wraps because 'you don't want to advertise to your potential adversaries what the vulnerabilities of this new aircraft might be.' It's unlikely that Trump will want to skimp on the plane's appearance. He keeps a model of a new Air Force One in the Oval Office, complete with a darker color scheme that echoes his personal jet instead of the light blue design that's been used for decades. What happens next? Trump toured the Qatari plane in February when it was parked at an airport near Mar-a-Lago, his Florida resort. Air Force chief of staff Gen. David Allvin was there, too. The U.S. official said the jet needs maintenance but not more than what would be expected of a four-engine plane of its complexity. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said it would be irresponsible to put the president and national security equipment aboard the Qatari plane 'without knowing that the aircraft is fully capable of withstanding a nuclear attack.' 'It's a waste of taxpayer dollars,' she said. Meanwhile, Boeing's project has been hampered by stress corrosion cracks on the planes and excessive noise in the cabins from the decompression system, among other issues that have delayed delivery, according to a Government Accountability Office report released last year. Boeing referred questions to the Air Force, which said in a statement that it's working with the aircraft manufacturer to find ways to accelerate the delivery of at least one of the 747s. Even so, the aircraft will have to be tested and flown in real-world conditions to ensure no other issues. James said it remains to be seen how Trump would handle any of those challenges. 'The normal course of business would say there could be delays in certifications,' she said. 'But things seem to get waived these days when the president wants it.' ___ AP writer Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
Sometimes a Parade Is Just a Parade
President Donald Trump has gotten his way and will oversee a military parade in Washington, D.C., this summer on the Army's birthday, which also happens to be his own. Plans call for nearly 7,000 troops to march through the streets as 50 helicopters buzz overhead and tanks chew up the pavement. One option has the president presiding from a viewing stand on Constitution Avenue as the Army's parachute team lands to present him with an American flag. The prospect of all this martial pomp, scheduled for June 14, has elicited criticism from many quarters. Some of it is fair—this president does not shy away from celebrating himself or flexing executive power, and the parade could be seen as an example of both—but some of it is misguided. Trump has a genius for showmanship, and showcasing the American military can be, and should be, a patriotic celebration. The president wanted just such a tribute during his first term, after seeing France's impressive Bastille Day celebrations. Then–Secretary of Defense James Mattis reportedly refused, effectively threatening to resign by telling the president to ask his next secretary of defense. Three secretaries of defense later, Trump has gotten enthusiastic agreement from current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Criticism of the display begins with its price tag, estimated as high as $45 million. The projected outlay comes at a time of draconian budget cuts elsewhere: 'Cutting cancer research while wasting money on this? Shameful,' Republicans Against Trump posted on X. 'Peanuts compared to the value of doing it,' Trump replied when asked about the expense. 'We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we're going to celebrate it.' Other prominent critics of the Trump administration have expressed concern that the parade's real purpose is to use the military to intimidate the president's critics. The historian Heather Cox Richardson wrote on her Substack, 'Trump's aspirations to authoritarianism are showing today in the announcement that there will be a military parade on Trump's 79th birthday.' Ron Filipkowski, the editor in chief of the progressive media company MeidasTouch, posted, 'The Fuhrer wants a Nuremberg style parade on his birthday.' Experts on civil-military relations in the United States also expressed consternation. 'Having tanks rolling down streets of the capital doesn't look like something consistent with the tradition of a professional, highly capable military,' the scholar Risa Brooks told The New York Times. 'It looks instead like a military that is politicized and turning inwardly, focusing on domestic-oriented adversaries instead of external ones.' Even the military leadership has been chary. During Trump's first term, then–Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Paul Selva reflected that military parades are 'what dictators do.' But these critics may well be projecting more general concerns about Trump onto a parade. Not everything the Trump administration does is destructive to democracy—and the French example suggests that dictatorships are not the only governments to hold military displays. The U.S. itself has been known to mount victory parades after successful military campaigns. In today's climate, a military parade could offer an opportunity to counter misperceptions about the armed forces. It could bring Americans closer to service members and juice military recruitment—all of which is sorely needed. The American military is shrinking, not due to a policy determination about the size of the force needed, but because the services cannot recruit enough Americans to defend the country. In 2022, 77 percent of American youth did not qualify for military service, for reasons that included physical or mental-health problems, misconduct, inaptitude, being overweight, abuse of drugs or alcohol, or being a dependent. Just 9 percent of Americans ages of 16 to 24 (a prime recruitment window) are even interested in signing up. In 2023, only the Marine Corps and Space Force met their recruiting goals; the Army and Navy recruited less than 70 percent of their goals and fell 41,000 recruits short of sustaining their current force. Recruiting picked up dramatically in 2024 but remains cause for concern. One possible reason for this is that most Americans have little exposure to men and women in uniform. Less than 0.5 percent of Americans are currently serving in the military—and many who do so live, shop, and worship on cordoned military bases. Misperceptions about military service are therefore rife. One is that the U.S. military primarily recruits from minority groups and the poor. In fact, 17 percent of the poorest quintile of Americans serve, as do 12 percent of the richest quintile. The rest of the military is from middle-income families. Those who live near military bases and come from military families are disproportionately represented. The Army's polling indicates that concerns about being injured, killed, or suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder are major impediments to recruitment. Women worry that they will be sexually harassed or assaulted (the known figures on this in the U.S. military are 6.2 percent of women and 0.7 percent of men). Additionally, a Wall Street Journal –NORC poll found that far fewer American adults considered patriotism important in 2023 (23 percent) than did in 1998 (70 percent)—another possible reason that enthusiasm for joining up has dampened. A celebratory parade could be helpful here, and it does not have to set the country on edge. Americans seem comfortable with thanking military men and women for their service, having them pre-board airplanes, applauding them at sporting events, and admiring military-aircraft flybys. None of those practices is suspected of corroding America's democracy or militarizing its society. Surely the nation can bear up under a military parade once every decade or two, especially if the parade serves to reconnect veterans of recent wars, who often—rightly—grumble that the country tends to disown its wars as matters of concern to only those who serve in them. The risk, of course, is that Trump will use the occasion not to celebrate the troops but to corrode their professionalism by proclaiming them his military and his generals. This is, after all, the president who claimed that Dan Caine, his nominee to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wore a MAGA hat and attested his willingness to kill for Trump, all of which Caine denies. This is also a president known to mix politics with honoring the military, as he did in Michigan, at Arlington National Cemetery, at West Point's commencement, and in a Memorial Day post on Truth Social calling his opponents ' scum.' Even so, the commander in chief has a right to engage with the military that Americans elected him to lead. The responsibility of the military—and of the country—is to look past the president's hollow solipsism and embrace the men and women who defend the United States. Being from a military family or living near a military base has been shown to predispose people toward military service. This suggests that the more exposure people have to the military, the likelier they are to serve in it. A big celebration of the country's armed forces—with static displays on the National Mall afterward, and opportunities for soldiers to mix with civilians—could familiarize civilians with their armed forces and, in doing so, draw talented young Americans to serve.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
‘I don't know why the president has this problem': Trump had a history of disparaging Haiti and Haitians before the travel ban
So when Haiti was included late Wednesday in a list of countries on which Trump was imposing a near-total travel ban, some saw a culmination of a long campaign against the population. Advertisement 'Donald Trump has been very consistent in his anti-Black racism, both domestically and globally, and when it comes to the country of Haiti, the people of Haiti, he has a long track record of vile, offensive, harmful rhetoric and policies,' said Boston Representative Ayanna Pressley, who co-chairs the congressional Haiti Caucus. 'It is just purely evil.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Florida Democratic Representative Maxwell Frost, who is of Haitian descent, echoed Pressley's comment that the travel ban is 'rooted in bigotry.' 'It does nothing to make our communities safer, but it does vilify immigrants,' Frost said in a statement. 'It will devastate our immigrant families across this country.' In response to Pressley's accusations, the White House called her assertions 'lazy, unfounded and just straight-up false.' Advertisement 'While President Trump is fulfilling his promise to unite the country and keep the American people safe, Pressley is desperate to divide us and smearing our heroic law enforcement officials in the process,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement, pointing to the rationale listed in the ban. Haiti is one of 12 countries facing a near-total ban on travel to the United States under Trump's new order, which cites an inability to vet immigrants for national security risks and a high rate of people overstaying their visas as justification for the measure. There are limited exceptions, including current visa-holders, permanent residents, dual nationals, athletic teams, and certain immediate family members of US residents. Other countries affected include Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. The move follows several other Trump administration actions that have had an impact on the Haitian community in the United States, including an early end to Temporary Protected Status protections for an estimated through the appeals process. Trump made similar moves in his first administration though most were ultimately blocked by the courts. The United States first granted Haitian migrants protection from deportation after the 2010 earthquake that devastated the country. Since then, a string of natural disasters and political conflicts have worsened conditions. Today, gang violence, crime, and instability are rampant on the island. Advertisement Amid the worsening situation, many Haitians sought refuge in the United States or came to join family here, either through the CHNV program, legal avenues, or without permission. Massachusetts has the third-largest population of Haitians in the US, including an estimated 15,000 who held TPS, But the influx of migration from Haiti has also spurred backlash, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, who was the only Democrat in the 2018 meeting with Trump's now-infamous comments, said he doesn't understand why Haiti seems to irk the president as it does. 'His hatred over Haiti is just impossible to explain,' Durbin said. 'I've been there many times. And this is one of the poorest nations on Earth, the poorest in our hemisphere, these people are suffering and need help, and they're wonderful people. I don't know why the president has this problem.' But Republicans defended Trump's actions and denied there was any animus behind it. Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, a Republican who has backed pro-immigration policies in the past, was also in that 2018 meeting. And while Diaz-Balart declined to talk about what was said, he does not believe Trump has an issue with Haitians. Advertisement 'No, I don't,' he said. 'I really don't. I really, really don't.' His South Florida district is home to a large Haitian population and others affected by the CHNV and TPS reversals, including Cubans but he defended the travel ban. 'There are countries obviously that can't guarantee a process where we know that people are [vetted] to keep the country secure,' Diaz-Balart said. 'I don't think it's unreasonable.' Former Florida Republican Representative Carlos Curbelo, a moderate who was part of the immigration negotiations in 2018 that preceded the meeting, said Trump seems to prefer 'white-collar' immigrants or those whom Trump perceives to be have been recruited or have sufficient resources to come here. 'I don't think he understands or cares that those types of comments and campaigns unfairly mischaracterize hundreds of thousands of people at a time, and I don't think he understands that just because you're a refugee or an exile, that doesn't mean that you aren't capable of making major contributions to this country,' Curbelo said. Noting the Cuban exile community where he (and Diaz-Balart) hail from, Curbelo continued: 'It's people who had to leave their country, that was not their first choice, that was their only choice, and that doesn't preclude people from becoming exceptional Americans who do wonderful things.' Pressley, though, is convinced Trump's approach to Haitians is a concerted effort. She compared the trauma inflicted on the migrant community to the terror campaign of the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan, saying it gets harder to fight back and project optimism when the actions layer on top of each other. 'It is terrorizing. It is terrifying. It is traumatic,' Pressley said. 'And it's just so intentional. ... Singling out Haitians, I mean, he's moved in a way that is obsessive and consistently, pointedly harmful.' Advertisement Tal Kopan can be reached at
