David Friedberg: Big, Beautiful Bill Could Be Huge for Nuclear Energy

I'm not a huge fan of being dependent on government subsidized energy at all. If the government is having to play a role in funding stuff, there's something really questionable in terms of our sustainability on that energy production source. Cuz what you want is not just to make a bunch of energy in the next 6 years or 12 years. You want to make sure that you've got an engine for creating new energy production on a continuous basis so we climb nonlinearly the energy production curve. That's what we need to do. And I hope that one of the key outputs of this, which a lot of people are really unhappy about the the loss of

the demand for solar and wind because of the loss of the government uh programs here. But what I'm hopeful for is it creates a natural market force for nuclear. So I while a lot of people are saying, hey, this is going to take away all this energy production capacity that's coming online in the next few years that we're supposed to. The counterargument is we're going to create a natural market force because the energy demand will still be there. So someone's going to show up and say, "Hey, I want to make electricity because there's so much demand for it." And maybe they say, "Hey, let's try this new nuclear dereg system and see if we can get it to work." But I do think one of

the potential benefits of removing those clean energy tax credits is that we actually see natural market forces drive demand for more naturally sustainable, scalable energy production source.