From the C2C Journal

By Gwyn Morgan

After decades on the outs with environmentalists and regulators, nuclear power is being heralded as a key component for a “net zero” future of clean, reliable energy. Its promise is likely to fall short, however, due to some hard realities. As North America grapples with the challenge of providing secure, affordable and sustainable energy amidst soaring electricity demand, it is time to accept this fact: natural gas remains the most practical solution for powering our grid and economy.

Nuclear power’s limitations are rooted in its costs, risks and delays. Even under ideal circumstances, building or restarting a nuclear facility is arduous. Consider Microsoft’s much-publicized plan to restart the long-dormant Unit 1 reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. This project is lauded as proof of an incipient “nuclear revival”, but despite leveraging existing infrastructure it will cost US$1.6 billion and take four years to bring online.

This is not a unique case. Across North America, nuclear energy projects face monumental lead times. The new generation of small modular reactors (SMRs), often touted as a game-changer, is still largely theoretical. In Canada – Alberta in particular – discussions around SMRs have been ongoing for years, with no concrete progress. The most optimistic projections estimate the first SMR in Western Canada might be operational by 2034.

The reality is that nuclear energy cannot scale quickly enough to meet urgent electricity needs. Canada’s power grid is already strained, and electricity demand is set to grow significantly, driven by electric vehicles and enormous data centres for AI applications. Nuclear power, even if expanded aggressively, cannot fill the gap within the necessary timeframes.

Natural gas, by contrast, is abundant, flexible, low-risk – and highly affordable. It accounts for 40 percent of U.S. electricity generation and plays a critical role in Canada’s energy mix. Unlike nuclear, natural gas infrastructure can be built rapidly, ensuring that new capacity comes online when it’s needed – not decades later. Gas-fired plants are cost-effective and capable of providing consistent, large-scale power while being capable of rapid starts and shut-downs, making them suitable for meeting both base-load and “peaking” power demands.

Climate-related concerns surrounding natural gas need to be put in perspective. Natural gas is the lowest-emission fossil fuel and produces less than half the carbon dioxide of coal per unit of energy output. It is also highly adaptable, supporting renewable energy integration by compensating for the intermittency of wind and solar power.

Nuclear energy advocates frequently highlight its zero-emission credentials, yet they overlook its immense challenges, not just the front-end problems of high cost and long lead times, but ongoing waste disposal and future decommissioning.

Natural gas, by comparison, presents fewer risks. Its production and distribution systems are well-established, and North America is uniquely positioned to benefit from the vast reserves underlying all three countries on the continent. Despite low prices and ever-increasing regulatory obstacles, Canada’s natural gas production has been setting new records.

Streamlining regulatory processes and expanding liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity would help revive Canada’s battered economy, with plenty of natural gas left over to help meet growing domestic electricity needs.

Critics argue that investing in natural gas is at odds with the “energy transition” to a glorious net zero future, but this oversimplifies the related challenges and ignores hard realities. By reducing reliance on dirtier fuels like coal, natural gas can help lower a country’s greenhouse gas emissions while providing the reliability needed to support economic growth and renewable energy integration.

Europe’s energy crisis following the recent reduction of Russian gas imports underscores natural gas’s vital role in maintaining reliable electricity supplies. As nations like Germany still phase out nuclear power due to the sheer blind ideology of their left-wing parties, they’re growing more dependent on natural gas to keep the lights (mostly) on and the factories (partially) humming.

Europe is already a destination for LNG exported from the U.S. Gulf Coast, and American LNG exports will soon resume growth under the incoming Trump Administration. Canada has the resources and know-how to similarly scale up its LNG exports; all we need is a supportive federal government.

For all its theoretical benefits, nuclear power remains impractical for meeting immediate and medium-term energy demands. Its high costs, lengthy timelines and significant remaining public opposition make it unlikely to serve as North America’s energy backbone.

Natural gas, on the other hand, is affordable, scalable and reliable. It is the fuel that powers industries, keeps homes warm and provides the stability our electricity grid needs – whether or not we ever transition to “net zero”. By prioritizing investment in natural gas infrastructure and expanding its use, we can meet today’s energy challenges head-on while laying the groundwork for tomorrow’s innovations.

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.

Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who was a director of five global corporations.

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Ireland Owens

President-elect Donald Trump’s promise to “drill, baby, drill” in his upcoming administration appears to have American energy firms eagerly awaiting his return, according to a new survey.

On numerous occasions, Trump vowed to unleash American oil and made achieving “energy dominance” a key aspect of his next administration’s agenda. Responding to an anonymous survey conducted by the Dallas Federal Reserve, several energy executives said that they are optimistically awaiting the former president’s return to office, with many citing “positive regulatory changes” in their responses.

The survey noted a dramatic decline in its “outlook uncertainty index” with one respondent explaining, “The outcome of the 2024 presidential election removes the risk of the unknown.”

“There is more optimism looking at first quarter 2025 than first quarter 2024,” one respondent wrote. “Much of 2024 felt like a waiting game … We think the election results will be good for activity even if it’s just because operators and service companies have a clear direction for planning.”

“We are encouraged that the new administration in Washington, D.C., will enact some positive regulatory changes for offshore drilling in the U.S.,” another wrote.

President Joe Biden and Trump have had vastly different approaches to domestic energy policies, though one survey respondent claiming that the shifting political landscape is “helpful insofar as regulations,” considering Trump is likely to reduce the regulatory burden on oil firms. For this reason, many energy executives have in the past criticized Biden’s energy policy.

From his very first day in office, Biden has led a massive push to curb greenhouse gas emissions as part of his signature climate agenda. Biden introduced the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, which unlocked hundreds of billions of dollars to subsidize various green energy projects. Trump has vowed to redirect unspent funding from the IRA, and previously dubbed the climate law “the green new scam.”

More recently, reports have surfaced claiming that Biden is considering a permanent ban on additional offshore drilling in some federal waters ahead of Trump’s return to office, potentially aiming to hamstring the incoming president’s energy plans.

“The recent election result is changing outlooks,” one respondent wrote. “The new administration will lift regulations, stop subsiding [subsidizing] green energy and seek LNG build-outs to place more demand on natural gas.”

While on the campaign trail ahead of the 2024 election, Trump pledged to revamp the U.S. energy sector, and repeatedly promised to “drill, baby drill” in a bid to increase domestic oil and gas production.

“We’re assuming that the new administration will encourage more development of oil and gas projects,” one survey respondent wrote.

In November, Trump nominated North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum to head the Department of the Interior and Chairman of a new National Energy Council. The president-elect praised Burgum in a post on Truth Social, stating that he would play a key role in overseeing the “path to U.S. energy dominance.”

Additionally, Trump announced in November 2024 the nomination of Liberty Energy CEO Chris Wright to lead the Department of Energy and as a member of the new energy council. The president-elect said in a Truth Social post that Wright is a “bold advocate who brings rational thought to the energy dialogue.”

The Dallas Federal Reserve’s survey data was collected from Dec. 11–19, and included 134 energy firm respondents.