As we grapple with the twin challenges of energy security and energy reliability, revisiting Nixon’s vision offers valuable lessons.
President-elect Donald Trump recently hinted at his support for nuclear energy on Joe Rogan’s podcast, calling it “better” than other energy sources and expressing interest in advancing small modular reactors.
His endorsement comes amid soaring electricity demands from Big Tech’s AI products and an urgent need for reliable energy to supercharge America’s economic future and restore U.S. energy independence. About 50 years ago, President Richard Nixon envisioned a similar path, laying the groundwork to construct, as the Atomic Energy Commission predicted, 1,000 nuclear reactors across the country by the year 2000. Although Nixon’s plan ultimately faltered due to high costs, construction setbacks, and his resignation, today’s renewed interest in nuclear raises the question: Are we finally ready to bring Nixon’s nuclear dream to life?
In the annals of American energy policy, few moments stand out as boldly as the unveiling of Nixon’s nuclear agenda. His plan, set against the backdrop of the 1973 oil embargo, was both a response to the immediate crisis and a long-term strategy for the nation’s energy security. One allure of nuclear power was its potential to diversify America’s energy portfolio and market, providing a backup in case of a crisis in one sector. Nixon envisaged a future where America’s cities and industries would be powered by the atom, reducing domestic risks associated with dependence on foreign oil.
The rationale behind Nixon’s nuclear ambition was sound. Nuclear power plants serve as a stable and reliable power source, unlike the intermittent nature of renewables such as solar and wind. With modern technological advancements, the safety and efficiency of nuclear plants have significantly improved, making them an even more attractive option for national energy grids.
However, several factors derailed Nixon’s nuclear dream. During the Cold War, concerns about nuclear proliferation were already mounting, particularly around civilian nuclear programs that could lay the groundwork for weapon development if nuclear energy expanded into politically unstable regions. These proliferation concerns, combined with environmental fears intensified by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and later the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, significantly dampened public and political support for nuclear energy. This climate of skepticism led policymakers to impose regulatory hurdles on nuclear plant construction that ultimately proved insurmountable.
Despite these setbacks, the underlying need for a robust and diversified energy portfolio remains. Today, as we grapple with the twin challenges of energy security and energy reliability, revisiting Nixon’s vision offers valuable lessons. The global landscape has changed, and the need for consistent, reliable, affordable energy has never been more obvious. […]
— Read More: thefederalist.com
What Would You Do If Pharmacies Couldn’t Provide You With Crucial Medications or Antibiotics?
The medication supply chain from China and India is more fragile than ever since Covid. The US is not equipped to handle our pharmaceutical needs. We’ve already seen shortages with antibiotics and other medications in recent months and pharmaceutical challenges are becoming more frequent today.
Our partners at Jase Medical offer a simple solution for Americans to be prepared in case things go south. Their “Jase Case” gives Americans emergency antibiotics they can store away while their “Jase Daily” offers a wide array of prescription drugs to treat the ailments most common to Americans.
They do this through a process that embraces medical freedom. Their secure online form allows board-certified physicians to prescribe the needed drugs. They are then delivered directly to the customer from their pharmacy network. The physicians are available to answer treatment related questions.
