Nuclear energy is safe, clean, reliable, and scalable. It can power the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution, revitalize industrial communities, and help meet our environmental ambitions. So why does building a nuclear plant in the United States cost so much?
Across the United States, billions of tons of industrial waste could hold the key to revitalizing the country’s struggling critical metals sector. PHNX Materials is unlocking that opportunity by transforming waste into high-value materials for the agriculture, semiconductor, and building materials industries.
Farm Bill debates this year have been riddled with pesticide fights. While the House was passing its farm bill, the Supreme Court was gearing up for a major case that could change how pesticide companies are held liable for their labeling. At the heart of these debates is one chemical in particular: glyphosate.
After two decades of flat demand, power consumption is surging. Grid Strategies forecasts 5.7 percent annual growth over the next five years, and the peak demand could be equivalent to 15 times New York City’s peak energy consumption.
Meanwhile, electricity prices are rising faster than inflation, and families and businesses across the country are feeling the effects.
It’s clear we need more supply, and nuclear power can be part of the solution. It’s safe, clean, dependable, and scalable. The key question for policymakers and ratepayers alike is: Is it cost-competitive?
America needs more electric transmission, the high-voltage lines that carry electrons from power plants to communities nationwide. But under today’s policies, building those lines takes too long and costs too much. Without a substantial expansion in transmission capacity, the country is at risk of rising energy costs, a less reliable electric grid, and stymied global leadership in AI.
Should taxpayers love or loathe data centers? This question seems a loaded one in the first place. To ask it is to present a binary choice when, in reality, public opinion on the matter is more complex. Initially, a handful of fiscal conservatives branded the facilities that provide the infrastructure of the next Information Age as little better than taxpayer-funded sports stadiums or convention centers, which are proven economic and fiscal losers for the communities in which they abide compared to the various government subsidies they receive. Yet, aside from the fact that data centers, sports stadiums, and convention centers are physical structures, they have little to nothing in common.
This month, C3 Solutions Action signed on to a bipartisan coalition letter calling for steady, robust federal funding for energy research, development, and demonstration. Addressed to the leadership of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, the letter highlights the United States’ long history of energy innovation and the importance of maintaining that leadership.
When wildfires are treated as a temporary, seasonal disruption rather than a continual, chronic risk, the default policy response is suppression. But a new analysis from PERC shows just how much that’s costing us.
The Department of Energy’s Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy Office (HGEO) is allocating $14 million to fund field-testing of next-generation geothermal technologies. According to an announcement on April 14, the Pennsylvania-based enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) pilot project will reuse existing oil and gas infrastructure to test the potential of geothermal energy in the eastern U.S., where resources are less accessible due to the region’s unfavorable geology.
The national average for gas prices has surpassed $4.50 per gallon, up roughly 45% from a year ago. If Congress passes a bill that allows for year-round higher ethanol content in gasoline (“E15”) without protecting small refineries, Americans’ pain at the pump will only get worse.
Help us promote free market solutions for climate change.
Thank you for signing up