.png){kind=small}
Good Energy Collective: Deep Dive
This report was lightly updated in November 2023. The previous version was published in November 2022. Download the report here, or read the full text below.
Table of contents
What is Good Energy Collective?
How could Good Energy reduce greenhouse gases?
Nuclear power as a source of low-carbon energy
Good Energy’s theory of change
Examining the assumptions behind Good Energy’s theory of change
What is Good Energy’s cost-effectiveness?
Is there room for more funding?
Good Energy’s current funding status
Use of additional funds in 2023
Are there major co-benefits or adverse effects?
Key uncertainties and open questions
Summary
Good Energy Collective (Good Energy) is a policy research organization that supports advanced nuclear reactors–which are designed to be safer, cheaper, and more versatile than conventional reactors–as part of an equitable clean energy transition. Good Energy is one of the top climate nonprofits selected by Giving Green in 2023.
Nuclear power plants generate electricity without emitting carbon dioxide or other air pollutants and provide a consistent source of electricity to the grid. We think nuclear power can play an important role in decarbonization because, as part of a diverse energy portfolio, it can complement other energy sources, such as wind and solar, which are affected by environmental conditions and require more land. Good Energy advocates for progressive US policies that support equitable advanced reactor deployment and engages with local communities to ensure broad support for advanced nuclear technologies.
We believe Good Energy fills a neglected niche in increasing advanced nuclear reactor deployment and can effectively absorb additional funding. We believe its work could have global implications if it contributes to scaling advanced nuclear technologies in the US, giving other countries the policies, technology, and/or general confidence to make them part of their clean energy portfolio. We believe Good Energy has substantial growth potential and that, with increased funds, it could become more effective by scaling its community engagement efforts and programmatic work.
We previously recommended Good Energy in 2022.
What is Good Energy? Good Energy is a US-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit that supports advanced nuclear reactors as part of an equitable clean energy transition. It was founded in 2020.
How could Good Energy help address climate change? Nuclear power could reduce greenhouse gases by replacing fossil fuels and contributing to a diverse energy portfolio. Building demand for advanced reactors could mitigate financial risks for companies and expand deployment. We think increased production could feed into a virtuous cycle by decreasing costs and amplifying political support, further expanding deployment.
What does Good Energy do? Good Energy’s primary activities are community engagement and policy advocacy. Its engagement includes convening stakeholders and speaking with elected officials. It aims to build support in potential nuclear host communities by collaborating with environmental justice organizations, community-based organizations, and other nonprofits. Good Energy’s policy advocacy includes writing memos, submitting public comments, conducting technical analyses, and legislative advocacy.
What has Good Energy accomplished historically? In 2022, Good Energy’s community engagement work included co-sponsoring the Energy Communities Alliance Forum on Hosting New Nuclear Development, which brought together diverse stakeholders such as government officials, Tribal leaders, and industry to share best practices for siting nuclear projects. Good Energy also developed and advanced its ideas by engaging with a network of nuclear stakeholders. For example, Good Energy is part of a nonprofit working group that contributed to establishing the US Department of Energy’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations and offered recommendations on implementation.
What’s new at Good Energy in 2023? In 2023, Good Energy focused on repurposing retiring coal plant sites into nuclear plant sites. In late 2023, Good Energy will expand its outreach to local policymakers, utilities, and community groups before on-the-ground engagements with communities facing coal plant retirements about the prospects of a transition to nuclear energy. Additionally, it received a $1.7 million (USD) grant from the US Department of Energy to work on consent-based siting of nuclear waste. Good Energy also launched a fellowship program to increase underrepresented minority participation in the nuclear sector. By the end of 2023, Good Energy plans on adding six hires, doubling its staff size.
What is its cost-effectiveness? In 2022, we developed a highly subjective rough guess cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to estimate the costs and impacts of Good Energy’s prior work advocating for a lifted ban on nuclear power in West Virginia. Focusing this analysis on Good Energy’s West Virginia advocacy is likely not generalizable to its overall cost-effectiveness. Namely, this model focuses on the near-term effect of advanced reactors in West Virginia and ignores the longer-term effects of market-building, scaling, and technological progress. We believe the organization’s real effect would be much higher than what we model in our analysis. Overall, we estimate it could plausibly be within the range of cost-effectiveness we would consider for a top recommendation. We have low confidence in this CEA but generally view it as a positive input to our overall assessment of Good Energy. We did not update this CEA in 2023.
Is there room for more funding? Good Energy’s budget for 2024 is about $1.8 million, depending on the salaries of its new hires. As of October 2023, its self-reported funding shortfall for 2024 is $350,000. If Good Energy raised an additional $100,000, it would use this money towards working on university and campus microreactors and/or geospatial mapping of communities impacted by new energy infrastructure. An extra $1 million would boost its on-the-ground community engagement and enable Good Energy to expand its programs, engage in state legislation, address uranium mining issues, and grow its fellows program.
Are there co-benefits or adverse effects? We think Good Energy’s co-benefits and adverse effects are primarily the same as those related to advanced nuclear technologies. Nuclear power’s co-benefits include reduced land use compared to other energy systems and improved safety over fossil fuels. Adverse effects include potential safety risks and the production of nuclear waste and other hazardous materials. For more information, please see our deep dive report on nuclear power.
Key uncertainties / Open questions: Key uncertainties include whether Good Energy’s efforts are necessary to increase advanced reactor production and deployment, the marginal impact of its priority focus on the US, and its room for more funding.
Bottom line / Next steps: We classify Good Energy as one of our top recommendations to address climate change. We believe donations to Good Energy will increase its organizational growth trajectory and its impact potential. We plan to continue to assess our key uncertainties and believe that we will be able to substantially improve our understanding of the severity and importance of these uncertainties as Good Energy executes its strategies in 2024.
What is Good Energy Collective?
Good Energy Collective (Good Energy) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that advocates for nuclear energy from a progressive lens. Its policy agenda includes recommendations for the Biden Administration, Congress, and the nuclear industry that would enhance advanced reactors’ supply and demand and build trust with local communities and stakeholders. Good Energy said it mainly focuses on US domestic nuclear issues but also has a separate workstream that looks at international topics, such as global climate diplomacy through nuclear energy cooperation and exports. It was founded in 2020. We previously recommended Good Energy in 2022.
What does Good Energy do?
We divided Good Energy’s work into two overlapping focus areas: community engagement and policy.
Community engagement
Good Energy aims to build support for advanced reactors in potential nuclear host communities by collaborating with environmental justice organizations, community-based organizations, and other nonprofits. Its “grasstops'' advocacy—engagement with opinion leaders and decision-makers—includes convening stakeholders and speaking with elected officials. For example, in 2022, Good Energy co-sponsored the Energy Communities Alliance’s Forum on Hosting New Nuclear Development, which brought together diverse stakeholders such as government officials, Tribal leaders, and industry to share best practices for siting nuclear projects.
In 2024, Good Energy plans to host town hall-style focus groups to help inform state and local governments on how to engage with communities, including ones new to nuclear energy and ones with existing reactors. Good Energy also said it would share its findings with industry and develop general best practices for others to follow, although we are unsure what this looks like in practice.
In 2023, Good Energy launched its Justice Champions Fellowship Program, which aims to increase underrepresented minority participation in the nuclear sector. Fellows receive a stipend, professional development support, and networking opportunities. Good Energy administers this fellowship program in partnership with Johnson C. Smith University, The Ohio State University, and the HBCU CDAC Clean Energy Initiative.
Policy
Policy priorities
According to Good Energy, its near-term policy priorities include supporting a coal-to-nuclear transition, creating pathways for public and community ownership of small and micro nuclear reactors, and ensuring sufficient federal funding for equitable nuclear waste management. Under a coal-to-nuclear transition, coal plants are repowered with advanced reactors, which would yield climate benefits from reduced emissions, health benefits from improved air quality, and economic benefits from keeping jobs in coal communities. Reusing coal infrastructure can also reduce construction costs by 15% to 35%.
Good Energy believes that public and community ownership can accelerate the deployment of nuclear energy by lowering the cost of finance and building durable local support for projects. In 2024, they will develop policy recommendations to advance publicly-owned nuclear power. With more funding, Good Energy would like to establish a working group to facilitate the development of campus or university microreactors, both for power production and educational activities.
Good Energy’s work on nuclear waste management ties into the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) allocation of $16M (USD) to help communities learn more about consent-based siting. Good Energy said it would like to ensure that DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy has enough funding to help with consent-based siting beyond its current two-year timeline. In 2023, Good Energy and the University of Notre Dame received a joint $1.7 million award from the US Department of Energy to work with communities on-the-ground to seed a process for the consent-based siting of nuclear waste.
An ongoing priority for Good Energy is embedding social science research into the nuclear energy sector, which it sees as important for building a just framework for a clean energy transition. Its work has included advocating for a social science agenda within the Office of Nuclear Energy to help guide planning, decision-making, and funding.
Policy advocacy and engagement
Good Energy’s policy advocacy includes writing memos on an equitable clean energy transition, submitting public comments, and conducting technical analyses. For example, Good Energy mapped out locations of US coal plants that may be strong candidates for repowering with nuclear energy. It also released statements calling for nuclear legislation that balances environmental justice and the future adoption of advanced reactors. It urged the Department of Energy's Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations to fund projects driving emissions reduction in the industrial sector. Good Energy develops and advances its ideas by engaging with a network of nuclear stakeholders, including federal and state-level policymakers, industry, national laboratories, and nonprofits. For example, Good Energy is part of a working group of nonprofit partners that have helped inform the standup of DOE’s new Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED); the group has provided OCED with recommendations on implementation strategy, and Good Energy remains an active participant in this group.
How could Good Energy reduce greenhouse gases?
Nuclear power as a source of low-carbon energy
Nuclear power can reduce levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere if it replaces or avoids electricity generation sources that burn fossil fuels, such as coal-fired or natural gas power plants. We think the most promising and large-scale GHG reduction opportunity comes from nuclear power’s ability to enhance energy portfolio diversity. For example, nuclear power can complement intermittent renewables like wind and solar power because it can produce steady electricity regardless of seasonal or environmental factors. Additionally, nuclear power uses the least amount of land per unit of electricity compared to other energy sources. Also, while we believe global decarbonization is theoretically possible without nuclear power, we think this approach could be more costly and challenging to implement. For more information on nuclear power, please see our deep dive report.
Good Energy’s theory of change
Good Energy’s primary inputs in its theory of change are (1) community engagement and (2) policy advocacy (Figure 1).
Our take is that community engagement could impact GHGs both directly and indirectly. For example, community engagement could directly affect deployment and GHG reductions by mitigating local opposition to nuclear projects and building demand for advanced reactors. Community engagement’s indirect impact is related to spillover effects that reduce companies’ financial risks. For example, community support could help companies avoid expenses from drawn-out legal battles and canceled projects. Additionally, increased demand for advanced reactors could help establish an order book for first-of-a-kind reactors and encourage companies to enter the market sooner. These combined effects could shift advanced reactor development and GHG reductions forward in time compared to the counterfactual.
We believe Good Energy’s policy advocacy increases the likelihood that advanced nuclear technologies receive policy support, whether from legislation or regulatory efforts within agencies. Increased government support for advanced reactor deployment would likely lower companies’ costs and financial risks. In turn, this would most likely increase the production and deployment of advanced reactors. Ramped-up production could feed into a virtuous cycle by decreasing construction costs (e.g., economies of scale, “learning by doing”) and fostering a more supportive policy environment for advanced reactors, possibly leading to more pro-nuclear legislation being passed.
We think Good Energy’s work on community engagement and policy advocacy in the US could have global implications. Namely, a proven model for advanced reactor deployment in the US could be used elsewhere. Additionally, cost reductions from accelerated progress on developing and deploying advanced reactors could have international spillover effects, such as exporting and leasing new technologies. We believe that proving the political, economic, and social viability of scaled advanced nuclear in the US is the most cost-effective pathway to global advanced nuclear. For additional information, please see our deep dive report on nuclear power.
Examining the assumptions behind Good Energy’s theory of change
Below, we discuss and evaluate key assumptions related to Good Energy’s theory of change. For each of the assumptions, we rank whether we have low, medium, or high certainty about the assumption. Importantly, a number of the stages of Good Energy’s theory of change are not amenable to easy measurement or quantification or are expected to happen in the future but have yet to occur. We assess whether the best available evidence, primary or secondary, for each assumption suggests whether the assumption will plausibly hold.
1. Good Energy’s community engagement will decrease opposition and increase demand for nuclear power (medium certainty).
Public support for energy infrastructure projects helps determine whether the project will be developed. According to a systematic literature review, this support is often correlated with knowledge, trust, and perceived positive benefits. We think Good Energy could play a role in building trust between communities and the nuclear industry. Namely, conversations with industry experts and stakeholders have led us to believe that many people in the US, especially those from marginalized communities, are predisposed to distrust the nuclear industry, given its history of environmental and procedural injustices. Therefore, as a neutral third party and (to the best of our knowledge) one of the few groups working on advanced reactor deployment across the nation, Good Energy can play a crucial role in building community buy-in and demand that industry actors cannot.
We think Good Energy’s emphasis on ensuring community participation in nuclear projects is promising. For example, some evidence suggests that parties can resolve conflict over siting nuclear waste management facilities through consensus-based decision-making processes. Good Energy’s work has included efforts to inform DOE on how to integrate such processes into waste storage activities. According to Good Energy, it has been challenging to build bridges with environmental justice and community-based organizations that could help with its community engagement efforts. However, in 2023, Good Energy hired a Community Engagement Lead, which builds our confidence in its ability to carry out its work.
2. Good Energy’s policy advocacy will help legislation supporting advanced reactors get passed (high certainty).
We believe Good Energy’s work advocating for a coal-to-nuclear transition may have helped lift West Virginia’s ban on nuclear energy. We do not think that Good Energy was solely responsible for West Virginia’s nuclear bill because other interests, such as industry, also advocated for it. However, we believe Good Energy’s contributions probably increased the likelihood of legislation being passed.
Good Energy contributed to this effort by releasing a report on the benefits of a coal-to-nuclear transition and engaging with state-level policymakers. According to Good Energy, West Virginia’s governor signed a bill repealing the state's ban on nuclear power plants shortly after Good Energy presented its coal-to-nuclear report at an event with several West Virginia House delegates in attendance. As evidence of Good Energy’s influence on policy, its work was later cited in DOE’s report on coal-to-nuclear, and Good Energy said that it has the impression that it has nudged policymakers and industry towards considering community engagement. Good Energy said it is now speaking regularly with the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear, which handles the US government’s coal-to-nuclear work.
As a new organization, Good Energy’s track record of policy wins is relatively short. However, we note its team is not new to nuclear policy and has had prior policy wins outside of Good Energy. For example, its Deputy Director, Jackie Toth, previously worked as an Advisor for Policy and Content for Third Way’s Climate and Energy Program. According to Good Energy, she was active in the US federal budget appropriation process while at Third Way and has applied a similar strategy at Good Energy. We have a positive impression of her policy engagement experience, given Third Way’s prior success securing federal funding for research, development, and deployment of advanced reactors.
3. Financial risks and high costs are significant but not insurmountable barriers to deployment (medium certainty).
We are under the impression that advanced reactors can become viable after reaching an inflection point where companies can profitably scale production and deployment. We think Good Energy’s work on a coal-to-nuclear transition could be constructive for reaching this inflection point. For example, a coal-to-nuclear transition has benefits associated with keeping jobs in coal communities, which could increase nuclear power’s appeal. Moreover, a coal-to-nuclear transition seems feasible given the dozens of US coal power plant sites that can be converted to nuclear power plant sites. We think increasing the number of projects developed will lead to lower costs because we believe some types of advanced nuclear reactors, such as ones that emphasize modularity and factory fabrication, will follow a learning curve. However, there is always considerable uncertainty over what kind of learning curve a new technology will follow. For more commentary on advanced nuclear's general cost-competitiveness, see our deep dive report on nuclear power.
4. Good Energy’s approach can build political and community support for nuclear energy (high certainty).
According to research by the Breakthrough Institute (BTI), few people in the US have a strong opinion on nuclear energy. Instead, public opinion has been largely cued by elite opinion (e.g., viewpoints of politicians and journalists), and elite opinion has been fractured between those with egalitarian worldviews who trend anti-nuclear and elites with hierarchical/individualist worldviews who are more aligned with nuclear support. To transform attitudes about nuclear energy, BTI recommended highlighting benefits, focusing on advanced reactors instead of conventional reactors, and targeting “egalitarian elites.” We think BTI specifically mentioned egalitarian elites because progressive leaders have been less outspoken in supporting nuclear energy and could prompt a substantial shift in public opinion.
We have a positive impression of Good Energy’s “grasstops” advocacy and its potential for shifting public opinion because of its alignment with these guiding principles. Importantly, we think Good Energy may be better positioned than other organizations to influence policymakers with egalitarian values because it advocates for progressive policies and a community-based approach. (We note that Dr. Jessica Lovering from Good Energy helped review BTI’s research report and was previously employed by BTI.)
Examples of egalitarian elites Good Energy has reached out to include members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, such as Representatives Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Mike Levin (D-CA). Although the role of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in influencing federal policy has likely shrunk after the 2022 midterm elections, we think Good Energy could still have an impact by working with progressive policymakers at the state level.
5. Good Energy will still be influential after the 2022 midterm elections (high certainty).
Good Energy’s influence after the 2022 midterm elections is not an explicit part of its theory of change, but we believe it is important to assess due to its political timing.
Democrats lost their government trifecta after the 2022 midterm elections, which we think has hindered the Democratic Party’s ability to pass ambitious federal climate policy. However, we do not think this will substantially impact nuclear-related legislation because more Republicans than Democrats support increased nuclear power. Additionally, Good Energy said that despite its progressive stance, it could still influence federal policy by framing nuclear energy in a way that appeals to conservative values. For example, Good Energy said it could highlight its energy security and economic benefits. In addition, Good Energy noted that it works across the aisle with nonpartisan and conservative climate and energy advocacy groups, although we are uncertain what this looks like in practice. We also believe that Good Energy may still be able to push its ideas forward by working through regulatory engagement, which it already has experience in, and state policy.
6. Cost reductions and a US deployment model enable international spillover effects (high certainty).
We believe US outputs in advanced nuclear reactor research, development, and deployment could increase adoption elsewhere by reducing costs, establishing regulatory standards, and having signaling effects. For example, South Korea initially built its conventional reactors by taking advantage of proven designs from other countries (including the US) and learning from their experiences. From this, and other advantages such as standardized design and stable regulations, South Korea was able to scale its fleet of conventional reactors and decrease its overnight construction costs over time. We understand that innovation in other countries helped seed this nuclear power scale-up in South Korea and that similar cases of technology transfer have happened with other low-carbon technologies. Additionally, nuclear policy experts we spoke to informed us that the US is an important proving ground for advanced reactors before widespread deployment. However, we note that these experts were primarily focused on US advanced nuclear efforts.
However, cost reductions and a successful deployment model alone do not guarantee adoption. According to some evidence, factors that have historically influenced whether a country adopts new nuclear power include the country’s proximity to a major technology supplier, the size of its economy, how much its electricity demand is growing, and how much it relies on energy imports. We assume that national markets would strongly influence countries new to both advanced reactors and nuclear power. We are unsure what factors matter most for advanced reactor deployment in countries with existing nuclear power. Additionally, we are uncertain about the extent to which advanced reactors can be exported globally due to their geopolitical nature. Namely, Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act requires agreements between the US and other countries on peaceful nuclear cooperation before any significant transfer of nuclear material or equipment from the US.
What is Good Energy’s cost-effectiveness?
In 2022, as a rough plausibility check, we developed a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to estimate the costs and impacts of Good Energy’s prior work on advocating for a lifted ban on nuclear power in West Virginia. Focusing this CEA on Good Energy’s West Virginia advocacy is likely not generalizable to Good Energy’s overall cost-effectiveness. Namely, this model focuses on the near-term effect of advanced reactors in West Virginia, and does not include the longer-term effects of market-building, scaling, and technological progress, which we think would increase our assessment of Good Energy’s cost-effectiveness. We chose to develop a more specific CEA because we think a CEA of Good Energy, overall, would include too many highly subjective guess parameters to have any confidence in its results.
Despite the narrow focus of this CEA, it also includes highly subjective guess parameters and should not be taken literally. In particular, we estimated the amount of funding Good Energy spent on advocating for West Virginia to lift its ban on nuclear power, the number of years that policy advocacy shifted this lifted ban forward, the change in probability of the ban being lifted due to policy advocacy, and how much of that change in probability could be attributed to Good Energy. Overall, we guess Good Energy could plausibly be within the range of cost-effectiveness we would consider for a top recommendation. We have low confidence in the ability of our CEA to estimate Good Energy’s general cost-effectiveness, but view it as a slightly positive input into our overall assessment of Good Energy. See below for a high-level explanation and the model for additional notes and citations.
Costs: We estimated Good Energy’s spending on lifting the West Virginia ban as almost $97,000, which we calculated based on Good Energy’s 2022 budget and funding buckets.
Avoided GHG: We first estimated the number of recently retired coal-fired plants in West Virginia that are amenable to advanced reactor siting. From this value, we estimated the annual electricity that could be generated if the sites were outfitted with advanced reactors. In the counterfactual case, the electricity generated by the converted reactors is produced by other electricity sources. We assumed the emissions of these other electricity sources had an emission intensity equal to that of West Virginia’s 2020 average. Therefore, we calculated avoided emissions by multiplying the advanced reactors’ annual electricity output by West Virginia’s emission intensity.
Effectiveness: We assumed that, in general, policy advocacy pushed the timeline for the lifted ban forward by 0.5 to 2 years. We assumed a relatively short time frame because we think that coal power plants are already being retired in West Virginia, and the state needs to replace them with new energy sources. Similarly, we assumed that policy advocacy changed the likelihood of the ban being lifted by a small percentage during the given period. We then assigned a small fraction of that policy advocacy to Good Energy. We estimated Good Energy’s effectiveness by multiplying the avoided emissions by the number of years and the change in the probability of the ban being lifted due to Good Energy.
Results: Our best guess is that Good Energy’s policy advocacy related to the West Virginia ban avoided one tCO2e for around $3.50 (range: $0.87-$14). We also developed a Guesstimate version of this CEA, which allowed us to assign ranges of values and probability distributions for each input.
We did not update this CEA in 2023.
Is there room for more funding?
Good Energy’s current funding status
As of November 2023, Good Energy has raised $1.1 million, which covered its $1.1 million budget. This amount does not include its DOE award, which has kept Good Energy’s spending budget neutral. Its budget for 2024 is about $1.8 million; the exact amount will depend on the salaries of its new hires. As of October 2023, its self-reported funding shortfall for 2024 is $350,000. Good Energy said it is starting to spend at a higher level that is closer to the amount of money it is bringing in and that it does not plan on growing its reserves.
Good Energy received a roughly three-year grant of $600,000 from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation that will conclude in 2024. Additional funders include the Bernard and Anne Spitzer Charitable Trust, the Alex C. Walker Foundation, the Anthropocene Institute, Breakthrough Energy Ventures, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. We think it’s likely that Good Energy will continue to receive funding from some subset of these funders and will also gain more funders as it becomes more well-known. However, we think that the scope of Good Energy’s work means it can comfortably absorb a significant amount of additional funding. For example, given Good Energy’s disaggregated work, we think its community engagement could continue to expand to new geographies it otherwise would not have focused on.
Good Energy said that if it received an additional $100,000, it would use the extra money on a subset of the following activities:
Developing an inter-university working group to explore the financing and regulatory challenges of establishing university and campus microreactors.
Building a geospatial map of communities impacted by new energy infrastructure.
If it received an additional $1 million, it would use the funds on the following activities:
Expanding its on-the-ground community engagement work, including for its coal-to-nuclear workstream and for siting advanced nuclear projects.
Bringing in lawyers and state-level experts to help develop policies and state legislation, which can help with new nuclear projects.
Widening its Justice Champions Fellowship Program to include Hispanic-serving institutions and minority-serving institutions.
Supporting restorative justice for communities facing uranium mining and milling contamination and identifying ways to achieve a responsible and ethical uranium supply
Our take is that with an increased budget, Good Energy could become more effective by scaling its community engagement and policy efforts.
Use of additional funds in 2023
Good Energy stated that the extra funds it received in 2023 from Giving Green-directed donations supported different aspects of its work, including travel, workshop participation, and hiring staff. By the end of 2023, Good Energy plans on adding six hires, effectively doubling its staff size from last year. Good Energy said Giving Green-directed donations were especially helpful in facilitating its new hires, enabling its existing staff to concentrate on core activities. We think Giving Green-directed funds have helped Good Energy take advantage of growth opportunities.
Are there major co-benefits or adverse effects?
We believe Good Energy largely shares the same co-benefits and adverse effects as advanced reactors. Co-benefits include improved safety and reduced land intensity compared to other energy sources. Adverse effects include the production of radioactive waste, which must be safely recycled or stored, and environmental and procedural justice concerns related to siting nuclear projects and uranium mining. However, compared to other organizations working on advanced reactors, we think Good Energy’s work probably leads to fewer justice concerns since it centers community engagement and environmental justice in its mission. Expanding nuclear power may also increase the risk of meltdowns and nuclear proliferation, but we are highly uncertain about this. Please see our deep dive on nuclear power for more information.
Key uncertainties and open questions
In addition to our broader uncertainties around advanced reactors (see our nuclear power deep dive), we are uncertain about Good Energy’s effectiveness, its primary focus on the US, and its future room for more funding.
Uncertainty around the counterfactual: Although we believe Good Energy’s theory of change holds, we are unsure whether its efforts are necessary to increase advanced reactor production and deployment. This is because the nuclear sector is already supported by other nonprofit organizations and industry players, which we see as having a robust presence in advocating for nuclear support. We think Good Energy improves the odds of increased production and deployment on the margin, and its efforts to shore up support from the left also protect against binary political failure.
How Good Energy’s tactics compare to other efforts to improve implementation feasibility: Good Energy’s actions could be less impactful if there are earlier blockers to deployment. For example, an inefficient licensing pathway for advanced reactors may significantly lengthen how long it takes to build and deploy an advanced reactor, increasing construction costs. If inefficient licensing stops companies from building reactors, this could be a first-order blocker to deployment that arguably comes before inducing demand. Please see our deep dive on nuclear power for more information.
Uncertainty around focusing on the US: We are unsure whether focusing primarily on advanced reactors in the US is the best use of philanthropic funds if we are most interested in expanding this technology globally. Other high-innovation countries working on advanced reactors include Canada, China, France, India, Japan, the United Kingdom, and South Korea. Experts we spoke with have unanimously agreed that the most likely path to global deployment of advanced reactors is through the US due to its innovation experience and gold-standard licensing process. However, most of these experts focus primarily on US advanced nuclear efforts.
Room for more funding: Although Good Energy has room for more funding, it has done well thus far in reaching its funding goals and has mentioned plans to grow relatively slowly. Given this, there is a fair chance that Good Energy will successfully achieve its 2024 fundraising goals without money directed by Giving Green. However, we think Good Energy could effectively absorb more funding than its fundraising goals suggest because it can expand its community engagement work to new geographies.
Bottom line / next steps
We classify Good Energy as a top-recommended nonprofit addressing climate change. We believe Good Energy’s community engagement and policy efforts fill a neglected niche in increasing advanced reactor deployment and can currently absorb additional funding. Though we generally view Good Energy as promising, we remain uncertain of Good Energy’s room for more funding and whether focusing on advanced reactors in the US is the best use of philanthropic funds. If we believe Good Energy can no longer absorb additional funding productively, we would no longer classify Good Energy as a top recommendation. We plan to continue to assess these uncertainties and believe we will be able to substantially improve our understanding of the severity and importance of these uncertainties as Good Energy executes its strategies in 2024.
Endnotes
[1] “Better governance will require a step-change by the administration, congress, and the nuclear industry… Here are the specific steps that different players must take to achieve an advanced nuclear-inclusive climate response.” Good Energy Collective - “Our Progressive Policy Agenda for Advanced Nuclear Energy" 2020.
[2] Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2022-10-17.
[3] So on August 11, 2020, we embarked on a mission to make the progressive case for nuclear energy as part of a broader climate agenda.” Good Energy Collective, 2022.
[4] “From Aug. 3 – Aug. 5, Good Energy Collective was onsite in Salt Lake City, Utah, to cosponsor the Energy Communities Alliance’s Forum on Hosting New Nuclear Development and talk about these issues. The fantastic team at ECA brought together local, state, and federal officials, Tribal leaders and members, economic development officials, reactor developers, engineering and construction contractors, national laboratory scientists, academia, and energy nonprofits… Participants met to knowledge-share on best practices and areas for improvement.” Good Energy Collective - “Good Energy Reflects: ECA Forum on Hosting New Nuclear Development" 2022.
[5] Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2022-10-17.
[6] Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2022-10-17.
[7] Along with our partners, we are proud to launch this undergraduate fellowship program for current HBCU students. JCFP is a new initiative to support undergraduate students attending a historically Black college or university (HBCU).” Good Energy Collective - "Justice Champions Fellowship Program" 2023.
[8] “Fellows: • Write, present, and publish a research paper on a topic they propose on energy policy, environmental justice, or nuclear energy • Build close relationships with two academic mentors on the research • Receive professional development support and networking opportunities • Interact with the fellowship cohort • Conduct a three-week intensive program and connect with HBCU researchers, national laboratories, and inclusive small business ecosystems • Constitute the first fellowship alumni network and receive follow-on professional development and employment support • Receive a stipend of $12,500, disbursed periodically over the fellowship period, to be spent at the recipient’s discretion” Good Energy Collective - "Justice Champions Fellowship Program" 2023.
[9] “Who is administering the program? Good Energy Collective, Johnson C. Smith University, The Ohio State University, and the HBCU CDAC Clean Energy Initiative are proud to partner on this fellowship program.” Good Energy Collective - “Justice Champions Fellowship Program” Explainer 2023.
[10] Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2022-10-17.
[11] “Based on the nuclear technology choices and sizes evaluated to replace a large coal plant of 1,200 MWe generation capacity at the case study site, nuclear overnight costs of capital could decrease by 15% to 35% when compared to a greenfield construction project, through the reuse of infrastructure from the coal facility.” US Department of Energy - "Investigating Benefits and Challenges of Converting Retiring Coal Plants into Nuclear Plants" 2022.
[12] “The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced $16 million in funding to provide resources to communities interested in learning more about consent-based siting, management of spent nuclear fuel, and interim storage facility siting considerations.” US Department of Energy - “DOE Announces $16 Million to Support Consent-Based Siting for Spent Nuclear Fuel" 2022.
[13] Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2022-10-17.
[14] Award: “The project teams will each receive about $2 million and represent diverse organizations, a makeup that DOE hopes will enable a broad spectrum of perspectives and approaches. The preliminary project teams that will receive the awards are:... Good Energy Collective (CA) as the lead, with the University of Notre Dame (IN) as a partner.” US Department of Energy - "DOE Awards $26 Million to Support Consent-Based Siting for Spent Nuclear Fuel" 2023. Award amount: Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2023-10-25.
[15] “Our research is rooted in social science and champions a whole-of-government approach, so that communities can go from ideas, to development, to thoughtful and effective deployment faster and more efficiently.” Good Energy Collective - “About us" n.d..
[16] “The next Assistant Secretary for the Office of Nuclear Energy should put together an interdisciplinary team tasked with directly funding social science research to help guide the office's planning, decision-making, and funding strategies--and whenever possible the research should be published in order to provide a new shared knowledge base for the broader nuclear sector.” Good Energy Collective - “It’s Time for a Social Science Agenda for the Advanced Nuclear Sector" 2020.
[17] “With data from our friends at the University of Michigan’s Fastest Path to Zero initiative, we analyzed the 300-odd U.S. coal plants where units have retired since 2010 or will retire by 2045. When we removed sites with environmental hazards, state nuclear restrictions, and generation of either too much or too little power, we found as many as 80 sites that make the most sense to explore repowering with advanced nuclear energy.” Good Energy Collective newsletter, 2022.
[18] Nuclear legislation:
[19] Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2022-10-17.
[20] Standing up the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations: “We’re excited to be working alongside other climate and energy organizations to help inform the standup of the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, a new agency at the U.S. Department of Energy that will support new, climate-friendly energy sources in proving their potential.” Good Energy Collective newsletter, 2022. Good Energy’s activities: “We have provided two sets of recommendations to this new office, laying out implementation strategies and considerations to chart a course for OCED’s success.” Good Energy Collective - First-of-Its-Kind: Making DOE’s New Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations a Success" 2022. Good Energy’s current involvement with the working group: Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2022-11-10.
[21] Nuclear produces 3 tCO2e per GWh of electricity, compared to 820 for coal and 490 for natural gas. Our World in Data - “Energy” 2022.
[22] Nuclear power plants contribute to electricity security in multiple ways. Nuclear plants help to keep power grids stable. To a certain extent, they can adjust their operations to follow demand and supply shifts. As the share of variable renewables like wind and solar photovoltaics (PV) rises, the need for such services will increase. Nuclear plants can help to limit the impacts from seasonal fluctuations in output from renewables and bolster energy security by reducing dependence on imported fuels.” International Energy Agency - “Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System" 2019.
[23] “First, we see that there are massive differences between sources. At the bottom of the chart we find nuclear energy. It is the most land-efficient source: per unit of electricity it needs 50-times less land compared to coal; and 18 to 27-times less than on-ground solar PV.” Our World in Data - "Land Use per Energy Source" 2022.
[24] “While it is theoretically possible to rely primarily (or even entirely) on variable renewable energy resources such as wind and solar, it would be significantly more challenging and costly than pathways that employ a diverse portfolio of resources. In particular, including dispatchable low-carbon resources in the portfolio, such as nuclear energy or fossil energy with carbon capture and storage (CCS), would significantly reduce the cost and technical challenges of deep decarbonization.” Energy Innovation Reform Project - "Deep decarbonization of the electric power sector: Insights from recent literature" 2017.
[25] We describe our certainty as low/medium/high to increase readability and avoid false precision. Since these terms can be interpreted differently, we use rough heuristics to define them as percentage likelihoods the assumption is, on average, correct. Low = 0-70%, medium = 70-90%, high = 90-100%.
[26] “Scholars have examined the role of many factors in understanding attitudes toward energy infrastructure, and often find knowledge, trust, and positive perceptions about the benefits of projects to be positively correlated with support for projects, although with variation across energy types.” Carley et al. 2020.
[27] Briefly, there exist robust technical solutions for spent fuel management, such as interim storage in dry casks and permanent disposal in geological repositories with excavated tunnels or deep boreholes—the greater difficulty, historically, has been siting such facilities. But the evidence suggests that these solutions can be implemented through a well-managed, consensus-based decision-making process, as has been demonstrated in Finland and Sweden.” Buongiorno et al. 2018.
[28] “Good Energy Collective’s Response to the U.S. Department of Energy Request for Information on Using a Consent-Based Siting Process to Identify Federal Interim Storage
[29] Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2022-09-27
[30] For more information see Good Energy’s staff page: https://www.goodenergycollective.org/about/team.
[31] Examples of industry interests: “Supporters of the bill include the West Virginia Manufacturers Association and the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce. They see the repeal as a way of enticing industries to the state and showing that the state supports multiple sources of electricity.” "Public weighs in on nuclear power plant prohibition repeal" 2022.
[32] Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2022-09-27.
[33] Things moved really quickly in West Virginia over the last few weeks, as lawmakers discussed, considered, and passed legislation to remove state restrictions on the construction of nuclear energy. As we flagged in our last newsletter, Jessica provided some information about nuclear energy at a Jan. 18 event that explored the feasibility of advanced nuclear for West Virginia and featured three West Virginia House delegates who were considering revisiting the restrictions. Jessica highlighted the collective’s report on the potential benefits of nuclear energy for communities with retired or retiring coal plants, which we released in December.” Good Energy Collective newsletter, 2022.
[34] Cited report: “Background and Literature Review… . Toth et al. (2022) focuses on the frontline community impacts of transitioning away from coal.” US Department of Energy - “Investigating Benefits and Challenges of Converting Retiring Coal Plants into Nuclear Plants" 2022. Nudging policymakers: Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2022-09-27.
[35] Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2022-09-27.
[36] “In 2020, Jackie traded her reporter's hat for an advocate's fedora and joined Third Way's Climate and Energy Program as an advisor for policy and content, managing the program's public opinion research and writing thinkpieces on the need for clean energy solutions like nuclear energy.” Good Energy Collective n.d.
[37] Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2022-09-27.
[38] “The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today released a report showing that hundreds of U.S. coal power plant sites could convert to nuclear power plant sites, adding new jobs, increasing economic benefit, and significantly improving environmental conditions.” US Department of Energy - “DOE Report Finds Hundreds of Retiring Coal Plant Sites Could Convert to Nuclear" 2022. We note that DOE’s estimate of the number of available sites is higher than Good Energy’s estimate of 79 sites. “Even through extensive downselection of coal facilities, we identify 79 sites that have good conditions to at least consider advanced nuclear power as a replacement technology.” Good Energy Collective - “Opportunities for Coal Communities Through Nuclear Energy: An Early Look" 2021.
[39] “We find that nuclear energy is a low-salience issue for the American public. Most people think about nuclear energy only when pollsters ask them to offer an opinion about it. When asked, about as many people express support for nuclear energy as opposition, but few have strong opinions… Insofar as public opinion about nuclear energy is polarized, that polarization has been cued by political elites. Elite opinion toward nuclear energy (in contrast to public attitudes) has been characterized by strong, consistent, and ideologically coherent attitudes. From the 1960s onward, elite opinion became increasingly fractured along the fault lines of cultural worldviews. Nuclear energy became absorbed into this polarization of elite opinion, and public opinion followed suit. Egalitarian worldviews aligned with the anti-nuclear sentiment, and hierarchical/individualist worldviews aligned with nuclear support. On both sides of the divide, polarization increased with education and political engagement.” The Breakthrough Institute - “Nuclear Cognition” 2021.
[40] “Three key guiding principles for communicating about nuclear energy emerged from this analysis: Principle 1: Highlight benefits rather than dismissing risks… Principle 2: Shift the prototype to advanced technologies… Principle 3: Target egalitarian elites…” The Breakthrough Institute - “Nuclear Cognition" 2021
[41] Gratitude also goes to reviewers who provided valuable feedback on an earlier draft, including
Armond Cohen, Baruch Fischhoff, Kirsty Gogan, Jeremy Gordon, Malcolm Grimston, Kuhika Gupta,
and Jessica Lovering.” The Breakthrough Institute - “Nuclear Cognition" 2021
[42] Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2022-09-28.
[43] To assess the likelihood of no Democratic trifecta, we primarily relied on FiveThirtyEight 2022 election forecasts. Though likelihoods varied over time, forecasts have consistently predicted that Democrats would lose the trifecta. For example, a 2022-11-01 forecast (Wayback Internet Archive) estimated an 18% chance that Democrats win both chambers.
[44] A poll by Green Advocacy Project found that 32 percent of respondents who identified as Democrats believed that increasing the use of nuclear power was “either essential to climate policy” or not essential but would help.” In contrast, 50 percent of Republicans agreed with either of those sentiments. Vox - “Americans love clean energy. Do they care if it includes nuclear?" 2019
[45] Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2022-09-27.
[46] Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2022-10-19.
[47] Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2022-09-27.
[48] “Regulatory Engagement: We submitted comments on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s review of its environmental justice guidelines, the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council’s January 2022 public meeting, the Office of Nuclear Energy’s consent-based siting process for identifying a location for interim nuclear waste storage, and the Council on Environmental Quality’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool.” Good Energy Collective - “Our Second Anniversary: Two Years of Building the Progressive Case for Nuclear Energy" 2022.
[49] “Korea skipped the early, small-scale demonstration phase and went straight to importing a large commercial reactor. In its first phase of construction, Korea continued to import several reactor designs from American, French, and Canadian companies, a total of 9 between 1972 and 1993.” Lovering, Yip, Nordhaus 2016.
[50] Conditions in South Korea: “The latest experience in South Korea, with its standardized design and stable regulatory regime, suggests the possibility of learning-by-doing in nuclear power.” Decreased costs: “Overall, from the first reactor in Korea in 1971, costs fell by 50%, or an annual rate of decline of 2% for the entire Korean nuclear construction history.” Lovering, Yip, Nordhaus 2016.
[51] "We show that the introduction of nuclear power can largely be explained by contextual variables such as the proximity of a country to a major technology supplier (‘ease of diffusion’), the size of the economy, electricity demand growth, and energy import dependence (‘market attractiveness’). The lack of nuclear newcomers in the early 1990s can be explained by the lack of countries with high growth in electricity demand and sufficient capacities to build their first nuclear power plant, either on their own or with international help.” Brutschin, Cherp, Jewell 2021.
[52] “Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act generally requires the conclusion of a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement for significant transfers of nuclear material or equipment from the United States.” US Department of Energy 2022.
[53] As a heuristic to guide our research prioritization, we consider something to plausibly be within the range of cost-effectiveness we would consider for a top recommendation if its BOTEC-estimated cost-effectiveness is within an order of magnitude of $1/tCO2e (i.e., less than $10/tCO2e).
[54] We describe our confidence as low/medium/high to increase readability and avoid false precision. Since these terms can be interpreted differently, we use rough heuristics to define them as percentage likelihoods our takeaway (i.e., [not] plausibly within the range of cost-effectiveness we would consider recommending) is correct. Low = 0-50%, medium = 50-75%, high = 75-100%.
[55] The DOE award is paying for some staff salary, but its effect on general operations has been budget neutral because Good Energy has subtracted from other areas. Giving Green conversation with Good Energy, 2023-08-21.
[56] Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2023-11-02.
[57] Good Energy’s goal is to have 25% of its budget in reserve. Good Energy said it underspent in its first year, but it is now spending at higher levels and that it does not expect its reserve to grow given its spending rate. Giving Green conversation with Good Energy, 2023-08-21.
[58] Grant size and funding period: “Good Energy Collective was awarded $600,000 in 2021, including 1 grant in Nuclear Challenges… 2 years 7 months” MacArthur Foundation n.d.. Conclusion of grant in 2024: Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2022-09-27.
[59] Spitzer Charitable Trust, Walker Foundation, Anthropocene Institute, Breakthrough Energy Ventures: Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2022-11-10. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation: “Good Energy Collective, $50,000, Sacramento, United States, 2023. To initiate a fellowship program to engage undergraduate students from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) in energy transitions research, resulting from the Energy Insights 2022 Ideas to Action Call for Proposals.” Alfred P. Sloan Foundation - "Grants Database" 2023.
[60] Giving Green conversation with Good Energy, 2023-08-21.
[61] Giving Green conversation with Good Energy, 2023-08-21.
[62] Giving Green conversation with Good Energy, 2023-08-21.
[63] Improved safety: “Nuclear energy, for example, results in 99.9% fewer deaths than brown coal; 99.8% fewer than coal; 99.7% fewer than oil; and 97.6% fewer than gas. Wind and solar are just as safe.” https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy. Reduced land use: Figure “Land use of energy sources per unit of electricity.” We use the median value for “solar photovoltaic (PV), silicon,” “gas plant,” and “onshore wind” for our comparisons. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source. Reduced electricity costs and risk of brownouts: ““A study last year by Stanford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that keeping Diablo Canyon open for 10 years could reduce the California power industry’s carbon emissions by more than 10 percent from 2017 levels and reduce reliance on natural gas. It also could save $2.6 billion in electricity costs and help prevent brownouts” New York Times - “Nuclear Power Gets New Push in U.S., Winning Converts" 2022.
[64] Radioactive waste: Once the uranium is enriched, it can be used effectively as nuclear fuel in power plants for three to five years, after which it is still radioactive and has to be disposed of….The operation of nuclear power plants produces waste with varying levels of radioactivity.” International Atomic Energy Agency - "What is Nuclear Energy? The Science of Nuclear Power" 2022.
[65] We note that Good Energy’ is not solely focused on the US context. One of its policy analysts works full time on supporting US civil nuclear exports. Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy, 2022-11-10.
[66] High-innovation countries: We defined high-innovation countries as ones that have high research research output, as measured by Nature Index. Nature Index - "Country/territory tables" 2022. Global advanced nuclear projects: We used Third Way’s map of advanced nuclear projects to determine which countries are working on advanced nuclear technologies. Third Way - "2022 Advanced Nuclear Map: Charting a Breakout Year" 2022.
[67] Giving Green correspondence with Good Energy Collective, 2022-09-27.