I’m thinking of dropping my subscription to the Washington Post. Historically, the Washington Post has been a good barometer of the prevailing wisdom in Washington, DC. Getting the point-of-view of the nearly official inside the Beltway view was worth paying for. Since its acquisition that has become decreasingly the case. What I have paid for was insight into the Washington consensus; I wonder if the Post still reflects that consensus.
That’s less something I can document than a feeling, a vibe. What sparked this reaction in me was two recent editorials. The first was strongly in favor of the construction of data centers. The other was in support of the construction of nuclear reactors. It’s not so much that I disagreed with either editorial than that I couldn’t imagine the Post running either editorial five years ago and I don’t believe they reflected the prevailing wisdom in Washington. Five years ago both positions were at best contested and often politically radioactive within the Democratic coalition that largely defined Washington’s policy center of gravity.
I can’t tell from my outsider position 2,000 miles away whether the new publisher is intervening directly, the WaPo’s reporters and editors are trying to anticipate the view that the publisher would take in an effort at securing their jobs, or the Washington consensus has changed. From the standpoint of a subscriber, the mechanism matters less than the outcome; either would produce the same shift I sense.
I also subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. Some consider that a pro-Trump, pro-Republican media outlet but I don’t think that’s fair. I think that the Wall Street Journal is a stubbornly pro-business, anti-tax (because they see higher taxes as anti-business) journal. They frequently run editorials against Trump and the Republicans when either take positions that the editors see as anti-business. You would think that Democrats would draw a lesson from that but apparently not. The WSJ gives me a consistent, intelligible pro-business lens. The WaPo used to provide such a lens for the Washington consensus. If those converge, one becomes redundant.
The brutal truth is that I don’t need to pay to get a pro-business libertarian viewpoint. If the WaPo is no longer giving me something distinct, specifically, a reliable read on the Washington consensus, then it has become substitutable. And substitutable products are not worth paying twice for.
Per Chat-GPT…
“The Biden administration has actively supported the development and construction of small modular reactors (SMRs) as part of its clean energy strategy. This support includes:
Funding and Subsidies: The administration has allocated significant financial resources to promote the deployment of SMRs, recognizing their potential to contribute to a low-carbon energy future.
Partnerships: Collaborations with the nuclear energy industry and climate activists have been established to enhance the operational capabilities of existing nuclear plants and to develop new technologies.”
So I could certainly see this being the consensus a few years ago. Dont know about now. As far as data centers go there seems to be opposition by both parties but more support by GOP at national level. At the state level it’s more mixed with people like DeSantis sounding more like Hochul.
https://www.npr.org/2026/02/26/nx-s1-5726431/data-centers-ai-trump-housing-states
Steve
Regulatory and legal costs represent a third of the cost of building a nuclear reactor. Funding, subsidies, and partnerships are significantly less important than reducing regulatory costs in encouraging the construction of new nuclear reactors. If there is a Washington consensus regarding the construction of nuclear reactors, it is in favor of keeping those expenses high. If it were otherwise, they would be reducing them.
Two nuclear reactors were completed during the Biden Administration, the first in 30 years. Construction on them began in 2009 and 2013, respectively. Construction of no new reactors began during the Biden Administration.
Kairos had its Hermes reactor approved in 2023 and started construction in July 2024 per Chat-GPT. (First Gen 4 reactor.) The Advance Act looks like it streamlines and accelerates some of the regulatory process.
“Yes, Kairos Power has started construction on its Hermes reactor, which began in July 2024 and is expected to be operational in 2027.”
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-approves-construction-hermes-reactor
Steve
Nuclear Engineering International article on construction beginning.
https://www.neimagazine.com/news/kairos-power-starts-construction-on-hermes-low-power-reactor/?cf-view
Steve
I see where I made my mistake. Ground-breaking began for the Hermes reactor in 2024 while construction began in 2025. Also the Hermes reactor is not a commercial reactor.
I still don’t think that points to a shift in the Washington consensus in favor of nuclear.
Dont you have any family in the construction trade? You have to build the foundation first. Anyway, the Advance Act passed 88-2 in the senate and 393-13 in the house. It may not have the big, sweeping changes you want but it seems like a pretty significant show of support for nuclear, different than in the past. Would it be sustained with this Congress? I dont know as only stuff that Trump likes would pass.
Steve
The official definition of “starting construction” is NOT “breaking ground”.
re: WaPo
Not to mention that the body of the paper has practically become an AP cut and paste operation, as if it was the Sounds.
Not sure what the kerfuffle is over nuclear. Dave’s essential point, that nuclear power plant construction costs and times need be measured with upfront regulatory issues resolution in mind, and that those upfront issues still dominate the process, is simply true.
It is also true that those costs and lead times have been declining, although not dramatically. Per kW it still costs a multiple(s) of a fossil fueled plant. And contra steve, its really not a Biden or Trump issue. Those trends have been at work prior to either administration. You can see that resolution of the issue moves at a glacial pace. Which brings me to a final, unmentioned factor, in the back and forth:
When you are talking the total lead times from concept to turning on the switch, technologies can and have changed. That’s a big gamble to make when you jump into the regulatory abyss, which you can’t control. Put your capital stewardship hat on. Take a look at the number of abandoned projects in the past 15 years.
I dont think either of us is arguing it’s a Trump or Biden thing per se, but rather what is the current consensus. The last admin just happened to be Biden’s. During that admin they approved a new reactor and they started building it. The also passed the Advance Act with real bipartisan voting. I think you are correct that this is part of a longer trend especially as many Dems now acknowledge that nuclear should be part of our total energy package if you want to reduce CO2.
To be complete Trump signed some executive orders that supposedly will make it easier to build nukes but those have not been released to the public last I checked and they were not turned into laws to pass in Congress. So the last measurable event would be, I think, the Advance Act and the approval and building of the Hermes reactor which had very broad support. One might even say consensus.
Steve