Trump Launches Reform of Nuclear Industry, Slashes Regulation (cnbc.com)
- Reference: 0177711993
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/25/05/23/2110200/trump-launches-reform-of-nuclear-industry-slashes-regulation
- Source link: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/23/trump-nuclear-executive-order.html
> The NRC is a 50-year-old, independent agency that regulates the nation's fleet of nuclear reactors. Trump's orders call for a "total and complete reform" of the agency, a senior White House official told reporters in a briefing. Under the new rules, the commission will be forced to decide on nuclear reactor licenses within 18 months. Trump said Friday the orders focus on small, advanced reactors that are viewed by many in the industry as the future. But the president also said his administration supports building large plants. "We're also talking about the big plants -- the very, very big, the biggest," Trump said. "We're going to be doing them also."
>
> When asked whether NRC reform will result in staff reductions, the White House official said "there will be turnover and changes in roles." "Total reduction in staff is undetermined at this point, but the executive orders do call for a substantial reorganization" of the agency, the official said. The orders, however, will not remove or replace any of the five commissioners who lead the body, according to the White House. Any reduction in staff at the NRC would come at time when the commission faces a heavy workload. The agency is currently reviewing whether two mothballed nuclear plants, Palisades in Michigan and Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, should restart operations, a historic and unprecedented process. [...]
>
> Trump's orders also create a regulatory framework for the Departments of Energy and Defense to build nuclear reactors on federal land, the administration official said. "This allows for safe and reliable nuclear energy to power and operate critical defense facilities and AI data centers," the official told reporters. The NRC will not have a direct role, as the departments will use separate authorities under their control to authorize reactor construction for national security purposes, the official said. The president's orders also aim to jump start the mining of uranium in the U.S. and expand domestic uranium enrichment capacity, the official said. Trump's actions also aim to speed up reactor testing at the Department of Energy's national laboratories.
[1] https://slashdot.org/~sinij
[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/05/president-trump-signs-executive-orders-to-usher-in-a-nuclear-renaissance-restore-gold-standard-science/
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/23/trump-nuclear-executive-order.html
Re: (Score:3)
Remember when Clinton and Obama allowed the sale of Uranium to Russia?
Re: (Score:3)
I remember when you lying fucks told this story and it was debunked if that's what you mean.
[1]https://www.npr.org/sections/t... [npr.org]
But the truth doesn't matter anymore. What matters is stigginit. Whether you have food and shelter or your kids have clean air and water or your grandkids have a future none of that matters in the face of stigginit.
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/06/561587174/the-alternative-russia-scandal
On the bright side.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Building a nuclear reactor takes so long simply from a construction standpoint Trump will be out of office and we can reverse all this before the U.S. has its own Chernobyl.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump with be out of office? And you think that would end MAGA?
Re: (Score:1)
Not as long as the Democrats have the hubris to keep campaigning for him. I wrote a short article on this if you would like to share your thoughts. [1]https://slashdot.org/submissio... [slashdot.org]
[1] https://slashdot.org/submission/17336255/ask-slashdot-why-did-democrats-campaign-for-trump
Re: (Score:2)
Vance is already being groomed for 2028.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure even Vance likes Vance. They'll pretty much have to run someone else, he's basically as charismatic as a sock.
Vance is a weird couch fucker (Score:1)
He's not going anywhere. The only reason he's even VP is he has a weird and probably sexual relationship with Peter thiel.
He won't make it out of the primary but at the same time if Trump isn't dead I fully expect him to run again and to win the primary.
Then I fully expect the corrupt supreme Court to rule that because his terms aren't consecutive he can run again.
Finally voter suppression means Trump will win that election.
Even though the economy will be a smoldering mess by 2028.
I don'
Re: (Score:3)
If you want a Chernobyl, you would have to really try hard to get one. For example, Chernobyl plant did not have a containment structure. Many other problems as well.
I don't think we need to get a Chernobyl (Score:2)
A Fukushima can do a hell of a lot of damage.
10 years. That's how long the city needed to be evacuated before the radiation levels were safe enough for people.
Imagine in this housing market if the local reactor has a disaster and you are forced to flee the city. You lose everything except the possessions you can quickly stuff in your car and go. Most notably you lose your house.
The corporation responsible for the disaster pays basically nothing. FEMA has been gutted to Make Way for 5 trillion dol
Re: (Score:2)
ok that post was way too long
Re: (Score:3)
"Removing regulations" the trump way is a good way to start having a Chernobyl.
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is which regulations are being removed (and which should be added).
"More regulation" vs "less regulation" is too simplistic. The answer is "Yes, we need more good regulation," and "Yes we need less bad regulation." Without a detailed analysis, you can't know if it's good or bad. Most likely here there is some good and some bad.
Re: On the bright side.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yea we know you will stop at nothing to destroy America, and as first order of business the few good things Trump manages to do will be axed along with all the bad ones.
The world is gonna have to use nuclear power eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
> Building a nuclear reactor takes so long simply from a construction standpoint Trump will be out of office and we can reverse all this before the U.S. has its own Chernobyl.
The worst that can happen with modern nuclear reactors is Three-Mile Island: no casualties, at most minor radiation leaks, all the fuel contained within the designated structure.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, those containment structures take a long time to build. All that concrete. It's silly. Just look at Walmart, now they know how to build. Some steel girders, bit of sheet metal and a week later there you go! Now that's how you build. Smart!
Re: (Score:2)
Even without a containment structure, you're looking at volatiles escaping: radioactive iodine and cesium, mostly. Iodine is a non-issue within a couple of weeks, and cesium is not too dangerous more than a couple kilometers away from the plant. And all the modern reactor designs have a molten core catcher, so the fuel won't get into the watertable (like in Fukushima).
TLDR; if they build plants without containment, it still won't cause Chernobyl v2.0
Memories (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember when the US used to pass laws through Congress like it's supposed to...
Congress can delegate authority to the president (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's pretty normal for them to do that because there is no conceivable way for Congress to work out every single little tiny detail.
The problem is the three branches of government are supposed to be co-equal and Congress is supposed to oversee what the president does along with the courts.
And frankly that's not happening.
What really upended and killed our politics once and for all was when Elon musk came out and said that anyone who crossed him and Trump would face a primary Challenger fully
Re: (Score:2)
> "Remember when the US used to pass laws through Congress like it's supposed to..."
Yes, it was a time before Congress intentionally gave up more and more and more of their power, responsibility, and control to the zillions of agencies they created, which are controlled by the Executive branch. Why? So they couldn't be blamed or held accountable for anything. It is the same reason we end up with multi-thousand page bills with all kinds of totally unrelated crap in them. So nobody can or will read or u
SWEET! (Score:1)
Three Mile Island For ALL!
Re: (Score:3)
Since you mentioned it:
[1]https://www.npr.org/2024/09/20... [npr.org]
[1] https://www.npr.org/2024/09/20/nx-s1-5120581/three-mile-island-nuclear-power-plant-microsoft-ai
Good. Hope they get Thorium too. (Score:5, Interesting)
When Sagan briefed Congress on anthropogenic climate change in 1985, this is what he recommended, specifically safe nuclear tech. The original scientific solution, that also advances nuclear research and gets us closer to fusion. Nothing in the numbers including meltdowns comes close to the danger posed by old school coal plants without even considering climate change, but it has become the most feared thing in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone actually overcome the salt corrosion problem that plagued earlier thorium reactor designs?
Re: (Score:1)
Apparently the Chinese are doing well with it. [1]https://www.technologyreview.c... [technologyreview.com] Also read so other stuff and it looks like the salt cooling is the way to go. Any leaks and it self seals as it goes from molten to solid.
[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/05/01/1115957/old-new-nuclear-technology/
One of Trump's issues (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the issues Trump has, even when he says something that I can somewhat agree with.. he does it in such a way that I assume there is some ulterior get rich scheme behind it.
We need next gen Nuclear power to help stabilize the grids while renewables do their thing.
Re: (Score:1)
I generally find that taking my news from a news aggregator like ground news helps to reduce the spin on his actions. To a degree he definitely has a messaging problem, and to a degree it is a media spin problem and to another degree he does just sometimes do weird stuff. It helps me to keep outside of the flame bait.... some day I will actually pay a subscription.
I don't know how I feel about Nuclear, but I think we keep inventing things that just need more power, for better or worse. America is built ar
It’s a good start. (Score:1)
This is a good start. But somebody has to pay for it. Make tech companies pay for reactors to power their massive data centers. Either that or tax tech bro billionaires and use the money for reactors.
Thank Goodness (Score:1)
Lots of compelling reasons presented. Watch it yourself and judge, don't let the media distort it:
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
We need nuclear. It's just the way it is.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9rCTRL6vmQ
Even a stopped clock is sometimes right (Score:2)
The US has too much nuclear regulation relative to the risks when compared to fossil fuels.
I like this (Score:2)
As someone who despises just about everything about this admin there's nothing in the EO I object to and I think nuclear power is a good thing and we should have more of it so you know, a W in my book. All that said do I think this will mature into anything? It'll be good but marginal, I think the NRC needs a big reform but this is something you do want smart, motivated people focused on the goal and not the ideology to get there and Trump is antithetic to staffing smart, capable people.
Faster Reactions (Score:1)
Apparently Trump has the power to alter physics for nuclear reactors, cause the first line says he "sped up the deployment of nuclear power reactions". Amazing.
Betcha $500 (Score:3)
if Christopher Lloyd visited the White House in full Doc Brown costume, that orange dumbass would instantly make him head of the NRC.
Yes, we know (Score:2)
We're also talking about the big plants -- the very, very big, the biggest
Like nothing you've ever seen, biggest ever in the history of the universe, yes, we know. Just put it on the pile over there with the others...
Good (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe the US can build a new nuclear plant in the next 40 years. Meanwhile, China is opening a new plant at the rate of one every 8 months.
Re: (Score:1)
Is it a contest?
Re: Good (Score:2, Flamebait)
> Is it a contest?
Yes of fucking course it is.
Re: (Score:1)
The U.S. and China are fervently engaged in a dick measuring contest, and at the rate we're going I'm afraid China is going to measure many more dicks.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously? Good luck competing technologically when you don't have enough power or it costs twice as much.
Re: (Score:2)
More of a race. You know, with arms and stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
The race is who creates ASI first. Energy will be a limiting factor in the near future.
Re: (Score:1)
> Maybe the US can build a new nuclear plant in the next 40 years.
Maybe Russia can "gift" the U.S. one, I think they have an used one somewhere ... :-)
To paraphrase Trump, it's a free reactor, we'd be stupid not to accept.
> Meanwhile, China is opening a new plant at the rate of one every 8 months.
I'd suggest the U.S. buy some reactors from China, but the tariffs on them would be terrible. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
> I'd suggest the U.S. buy some reactors from China, but the tariffs on them would be terrible. :-)
That would be doubly ironic given most of the reactors currently being built by China were originally designed by Westinghouse.
Re: (Score:2)
> were originally designed by Westinghouse.
Hardly.
Chinese have always applied a heavily diversified approach to nuclear power generation, and have purposefully avoided reliance on any single design, licensing tech from many sources and localizing it heavily, practically to the point of technological independence usually by the time they build their second reactor.
Virtually all operational Chinese reactors are their own designs, even when based on foreign tech. The foreign tech is mostly French, Canadian or Soviet but the plants are locally built and