Reductions in force, particularly among probationary employees and contractors, risk "neutralizing" critical agencies, rendering them ineffective, and disrupting workflow.
While the administration claims the cuts will increase efficiency, the actual savings are minimal compared to the overall federal budget, and the cuts may be intended to weaken agencies to further a deregulatory agenda.
Before cutting the ranks of U. S. government employees who safeguard the nation's nuclear material and respond to nuclear accidents, it would seem wise to ask them exactly what tasks they are assigned and how they accomplish them. Apparently, that was not a consideration when the Trump administration through its U. S. Department of Government Efficiency Service (currently run by billionaire Elon Musk) began firing personnel at the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA).
What is happening at the NNSA is a window into why merely downsizing an organization does not necessarily increase its efficiency. On its website the NNSA explains that it has the following missions:To ensure the United States maintains a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear stockpile.
To prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear or radioactive material that could be used in an attack on the United States, its interests, or allies.
To provide effective nuclear propulsion plants to the U. S. Navy.
To prepare for nuclear and radiological incidents and accidents through planning, training, and exercises and respond to nuclear and radiological incidents and accidents worldwide.
This is not an exhaustive list, and it seems like pretty important stuff for which a careful evaluation of required staffing would be crucial, both the number of employees needed and the expertise of those employees. For now it's not clear who was fired. Even some of the employees who believe they were fired are unsure they are no longer employees as the firings were "paused." That's how chaotic the process has been.
And, that's just one small agency within a government that does a lot of other pretty important stuff that we expect government to do. Other agencies respond to public health emergencies such as pandemics. Yet others respond to emergencies such as hurricanes and floods. Most people are familiar with the Federal Emergency Management Agency which coordinates responses among many agencies in such instances. Some agencies perform routine tasks such as making sure recipients of Social Security payments receive them. One wonders what kind of reaction we might see from the public if the effectiveness of these employees in the Social Security Administration were to be disrupted.
How personnel reductions might impair the effectiveness of any group is informed by a general rule of thumb used by the U. S. Army regarding the effectiveness of fighting units after taking losses: "[A]n enemy combat unit is considered suppressed after suffering 3% personnel casualties or material losses, neutralized by 10% losses, and destroyed upon sustaining 30% losses." The percentages are this small because as losses mount, they include critical personnel without whom the entire unit cannot function effectively. These might include communications and intelligence personnel.
It's worth considering more broadly how the administration says it is planning to cut the federal work force in order to understand how this might alter the effectiveness of that work force. (I will not speak to the legality of these firings as this would require a piece all to itself.)
In the U. S. government, oftentimes critical work is done by contractors. (The proliferation of contractors in the U. S. government is in part a consequence of earlier attempts to appear to reduce the size of the government by keeping the number of direct government employees down—often referred to as reducing "head count"—which then necessitated hiring contractors to do the work previously done by federal employees—sometimes at higher cost.) It easier to fire contractors than to fire federal employees protected by civil service laws and regulations. But firing contractors often takes key people from teams that are a mix of direct federal employees and contractors. I know a federal contractor who fits this description and who was terminated.
A second category targeted by this so-called efficiency drive are probationary employees. Those employees do not enjoy civil service protections until they reach the end of their probation period, usually within one or two years of starting a job. This makes them easy to fire. However, the same problem discussed above regarding contractors applies to probationary employees. Federal employees (and, in fact, employees everywhere in large organizations public and private) rarely do their jobs alone.
They are connected to a large web of other employees with whom they must interact and coordinate. Plucking probationary employees from the web does not take into account how those employees fit into the work flow of an agency nor the distribution of such employees among agencies. For example, about a quarter of all probationary employees are believed to work for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). This would imply that 13 percent of the VHA work force is set to be fired. That seems like a number that would "neutralize" the VHA, that is, make the VHA ineffective or at least very much less effective.
How many probationary employees are there currently in the U. S. government? Though the numbers keep changing, there appeared to be about 220,000 in March 2024. Additional numbers will give us perspective. The total civilian federal work force stands at a little more than 3 million. (Incidentally, the total civilian federal workforce peaked in 1990 and has drifted slightly downward except for spikes that appear to be related to hiring census workers for the decennial U. S. census.)
Of those 3 million civilian federal workers, 775,000 are civilian defense employees. Since the Trump administration wants to increase defense spending, it is probably safe to assume these jobs are staying. That leaves about 2.25 million other jobs that may be subject to cuts. We don't know how many of the 220,000 probationary employees work in defense, but cutting all of this class of employees comes perilously close to the 10 percent cut which the military would say could cause a group to become "neutralized." How much of the U. S. government the public would tolerate being "neutralized" is not clear, assuming that means the affected agencies are no longer capable of carrying out their mission.
Could agencies re-organize to provide the same services they do now with fewer personnel? It might be possible in some cases. But that would take time, planning and probably some upfront additional investment. The Trump administration seems uninterested in this approach.
Worth noting is what the firing of federal civilian employees might save. Last year those employees were paid about $350 billion in total. The federal budget was $6.5 trillion. Compensation to federal employees then works out to be 5.4 percent of the entire budget. If the Trump administration were to fire half of the total work force it might reduce the federal budget by 2.7 percent (if the firings were equal among all levels of pay) or about $175 billion. But, of course, firings are currently concentrated at the lowest level of pay (probationary employees) and that means an even smaller reduction would be achieved. The trillions of promised reductions in federal spending cannot come from firing employees.
The real money in the federal budget is found in Social Security (21 percent), Medicare (15 percent), national defense (14 percent) and other health care which almost certainly includes Medicaid (13 percent). It is difficult to imagine that major cuts in these would be popular with the public or in Congress.
Given all this, it is worth asking whether the cuts in federal personnel are really about efficiency. On these facts, either the authors of the cuts don't understand what they are doing OR they intend to "neutralize" government agencies so that those agencies are no longer effective. That certainly fits with the deregulatory agenda of the Trump administration. But will it sit well with the public when the routine services, emergency help, public health programs and environmental protections they count on are no longer effective or in some cases even available?
UPDATE Feb. 16 at 9:57 a.m.: Federal firings have now hit USDA laboratories across the country crucial to tracking the bird flu that is devastating poultry flocks and spreading fast through cattle. Those expecting this administration to bring down food prices should take note.
UPDATE II Feb. 16 at 10:29 a.m.: The Trump administration is now trying to rehire some of the people it fired from the National Nuclear Security Agency mentioned at the beginning of this piece. But because they canceled the fired employees' email accounts, they don't have a way to reach them easily.
By Kurt Cobb via Resource Insights
Last Energy, a US start-up, has formally entered the nuclear site licensing process to build four micro-nuclear plants in South Wales.
This project is the first privately financed nuclear project to undergo site licensing in the UK since the 1970s.
The proposed microreactors aim to supply energy to approximately 244,000 UK homes and generate 100 local jobs.
A US start-up has formally entered the running to build four micro-nuclear plants in South Wales without a dime from the taxpayer.
Washington-based Last Energy on Monday announced confirmation from the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) that it had entered the nuclear site licensing process for the plans.
The ONR’s notice follows seven months of engagement and is a critical milestone in the company’s bid to build the 20 MWe microreactors.
Last Energy’s proposals are the first privately financed project to be admitted into site licensing in the UK in a sector that has traditionally relied on subsidies. The South Wales nuclear site is also the first to undergo licensing since the Torness Power Station in the 1970s.
The company estimates the project will create 100 local jobs and produce the equivalent energy consumed by around 244,000 UK homes each year. It intends to bring the micro modular nuclear units into service on a vacant site in Bridgend County, which formerly housed the coal-fired Llynfi Power Station.
Monday’s announcement comes as the UK government looks to revatilise its nuclear power sector and replenish an ageing fleet of reactors using niftier technologies.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced a series of policy reforms earlier in February aimed at streamlinging nuclear planning.
“We are pleased to officially enter site licensing with ONR, as we continue to make tangible progress toward the delivery of our first microreactor in Wales,” said Michael Jenner, CEO of Last Energy UK.
“This is another critical milestone necessary to unlock nuclear power at scale in the UK, which will help meet growing energy demand and alleviate grid restraints.
“We appreciate ONR’s efforts during early engagement, which has allowed us to accelerate through the process swiftly.”
Last Energy first obtained control of the South Wales site in October and accepted a grid connection offer from National Grid in January.
By City AM
China has significantly increased its nuclear energy capacity in the last decade, positioning it to become the world's largest nuclear energy producer.
China is actively developing and deploying advanced nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors and thorium-fueled reactors, outpacing Western development in these areas.
The cost and time required to build nuclear reactors in China are substantially lower than in the United States, giving China a competitive edge in both domestic and international markets.
China has lapped the rest of the world in terms of nuclear energy deployment, and now it has its gaze set on dominating the nuclear export sector as well. Though the United States has been the biggest nuclear power generator in the world for decades, the American market has significantly slowed in recent decades, with much of its ageing fleet facing terminal decline. Over the same period, China has doubled down on nuclear energy buildout, adding a staggering 34 gigawatts of capacity over the last ten years. As a result, China is now set to overtake the United States (and France) to become the world’s single biggest producer of nuclear energy within the next ten years.
At the same time that China has been rapidly building out its nuclear power capacity, it has also been experimenting with many novel technologies. China has busily rolled out small modular reactors and high-temperature gas-cooled units while similar U.S. designs have languished in regulation limbo. And Beijing has even more ambitious nuclear energy prototypes in mind, including reactor models fueled by thorium instead of uranium.
All of this is to say that the Chinese nuclear sector has definitively cornered global expertise on nuclear technologies and development. Though U.S. scientists have developed similar prototypes in theory, and often before Chinese markets began to consider them, China actually managed to build them and now boast a wealth of experiential knowledge that the West cannot seem to keep pace with.
While the West is aware that it is losing the nuclear energy race, there’s little that the United States or European Union countries can do to close the gap. China is able to build nuclear reactors in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost compared to its Western would-be competitors. “The country’s reactor developers are state-owned enterprises, and receive preferential loans with low interest rates,” the Huffington Post recently reported. “That’s a stark contrast from U.S. and European projects, which can overrun their budgets by billions of dollars each time a regulatory delay holds them up, sending interest on their loans soaring.”
The United States’ newest nuclear reactor, Georgia's Plant Vogtle, finally fully came online on April 29, 2024, seven years late and $17 billion over budget. This makes it, by some accounts, the most expensive infrastructure project of any kind in U.S. history at a whopping $35 billion. And now that Vogtle is finally finished, there are currently zero nuclear reactors under construction in the United States.
Moreover, electricity provided by Plant Vogtle is estimated to cost the “astoundingly high” sum of $170–$180/MWh. This, too, is a huge issue for the nuclear sector in the United States, where different energy sources have to be cost competitive. In China, where the electricity market is not divvied up in the same way, nuclear plants can “count on steady electricity rates from industrial buyers to help pay off the cost of a multibillion-dollar investment in new reactors” according to the Huffington Post.
Now, Chinese nuclear power is ready to make a mark on international energy markets as well. Beijing is rapidly expanding its presence in emerging markets from Asia to Africa by financing and building nuclear reactors in countries that desperately need reliable and carbon-neutral energy buildout. While Russia currently dominates global nuclear supply chains, China may be on track to overtake that superlative as well.
“We continue to advance comprehensive cooperation with ‘old friends’ such as Russia and France, expand in-depth cooperation with ‘new partners’ such as other key European countries,” Lu Tiezhong, a China National Nuclear Company (CNNC) official, told the Chinese nationalist propaganda outlet the Global Times last year. “We plan to establish a research and development center in Eastern Europe, seize the opportunity of accelerated global innovation resource flow and reshuffling, continuously increase the participation of international scientific and technological talents in CNNC’s scientific research tasks and engineering implementation, coordinate with international development strategies, expand international influence, open up international markets and help CNNC’s full industry chain ‘go global.’”
By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com
Trump's Energy Secretary Is Betting Big on Nuclear Power
- The Trump administration has declared a national energy emergency to support fossil fuels, but it is also backing nuclear power, unlike other clean energy sources.
- Energy Secretary Chris Wright is prioritizing nuclear energy, including advanced nuclear power and small modular reactors, aiming to launch an American nuclear renaissance.
- Trump's policies are expected to boost domestic uranium production and reclassify uranium as a critical mineral, reducing reliance on foreign sources.
President Trump has doubled down on his pledges to allow for more fossil fuel production and reign in green funding since he came into office last month. He signed executive orders to allow for new oil and gas exploration and boost output, as well as restrict new renewable energy projects and halt a great deal of green funding. He declared a national energy emergency on 20th January, under the National Emergencies Act, largely in a bid to support fossil fuels and condemn renewable energy sources. However, perhaps surprisingly, his condemnation of clean energy does not appear to extend to nuclear power, which is expected to flourish under the Trump administration.
Chris Wright, the Energy Secretary appointed by Trump, sees commercial nuclear energy as a key power source in the future of U.S. energy. Upon taking office, he listed his priorities, which included advanced nuclear power, fossil fuels, geothermal, and hydropower. Wright’s first Secretarial Order states, “The long-awaited American nuclear renaissance must launch during President Trump’s administration. As global energy demand continues to grow, America must lead the commercialisation of affordable and abundant nuclear energy. As such, the Department will work diligently and creatively to enable the rapid deployment and export of next-generation nuclear technology.” It also says, “The Department must also prioritise true technological breakthroughs – such as nuclear fusion.”
Maria Korsnick, President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, responded by saying, “We applaud the Senate’s confirmation of Chris Wright as Secretary of Energy. In this new role, Secretary Wright will play a pivotal role in furthering our nation’s energy and national security goals through prioritizing reliable, 24/7/365 energy generation, like clean nuclear energy. We look forward to working with Secretary Wright to continue our progress toward building the resilient, reliable, and affordable energy grid of the future.”
Some expect Trump to back smaller-scale nuclear projects that are faster and cheaper to get up and running. During his presidential campaign in October, Trump pointed out in an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan that large-scale nuclear builds like Vogtle “get too big, and too complex and too expensive.”
During his first term in office, Trump signed an executive order promoting the use of small modular reactors (SMRs) for national defence and space exploration. SMRs are viewed by many as the future of nuclear power as they can be developed cheaper and faster than conventional reactors and can be joined together to produce more power. Further, several non-traditional nuclear energy companies, including start-ups, without the capabilities to build large reactors are developing SMRs. The licensing process for SMRs is expected to be more streamlined than large-scale projects, allowing for faster deployment of nuclear energy across the U.S. This would help achieve Trump’s aim of providing more energy to data centres to support the rollout of complex technologies, such as artificial intelligence.
Trump has also emphasised his support for national energy production and goods manufacturing. He recently requested that uranium be reclassified as a critical mineral, after the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) dropped the nuclear metal from its critical minerals list in 2022 when it deemed uranium a “fuel mineral”, meaning it no longer qualified. In his “Unleashing American Energy”, Trump asks for uranium to be put back on the list, a move that would help unlock federal funding and fast-track permitting for domestic uranium projects.
The U.S. began producing its first high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) in 2023. The Biden administration supported the development of uranium projects following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and subsequent sanctions on Russian energy. Previously, the U.S. depended heavily on Russia for its HALEU, as the only commercial producer of the fuel. Centrus Energy Corp produced the first 20 kg of domestic HALEU as part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DoE) HALEU Demonstration project at an enrichment facility in Piketon, Ohio. Speaking about this achievement, Centrus President and CEO Daniel Poneman stated, “This critical milestone is essential to meeting the Department’s near-term HALEU needs while laying the groundwork for the full restoration of America’s lost domestic uranium enrichment capacity.”
The U.S. continues to import most of its uranium from Canada, Australia, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan because it is cheaper and more abundant. U.S. companies pay a combined $1 billion a year to Russia's state-owned nuclear agency, Rosatom, importing around 14 percent of U.S. uranium and 28 percent of U.S. enrichment services. However, with sanctions on Russian energy and the potential introduction of tariffs on Canadian products, Trump is expected to support the expansion of a domestic uranium industry.
Experience from President Trump’s first term in office, as well as decisions made in the first month of his second term, suggest that, unlike other clean energy sources, nuclear power might thrive under the Trump administration. In addition to fossil fuels, Trump has voiced his support for nuclear power and has appointed an Energy Secretary who favours the power source, suggesting that the sector may grow significantly as several states continue to back clean energy projects.
By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com
No comments:
Post a Comment