The DOE move to prop up the nuclear big iron also prompts a recollection of the words of the great American philosopher Lawrence “Yogi” Berra: “It’s déjà vu all over again.” Alternatively, “Been there. Done that. Didn’t work.” Some 20 years ago, facing a 30-year decline in the U.S. nuclear power business (no reactor ordered after 1974 got built), the George W. Bush administration threw $8 billion in 2005 dollars each to two, two-unit AP-1000 reactor projects.

The Trump administration and its Department of Energy have made Canada–who many Americans other than Donald Trump consider our closest ally and good friend–happy. Recently (June 23, 2026), DOE’s loan office (grandiosity renamed the Office of Energy Dominance Financing) announced a $17.5 billion dollar loan program to subsidize building five as yet unidentified, two-unit 1,000-MW, nuclear power plant stations.…

“Climate alarmism and forced energy transformation is a losing argument now that the dust has settled. Exaggeration backfires, and here-and-now issues matter, not wasteful climate policies that do not and will not have any effect on climate for decades, if at all. As painful as it might be, it is time for Amy Westervelt (et al.) to check their premises. The Climate Industrial Complex is a beast just like, in her head, Big Oil.”

Amy Westervelt is in denial at DRILLED, a climate alarmist website. She gives four major reasons for “Climate Media’s Philanthropy Problem” (June 2, 2026).

“We’ve talked before about the massive bloodletting in climate media this year,” she begins:

even amidst the general demise of journalism, climate reporting stands out as having been hit particularly hard.

Ed. Note: Today’s post concludes a three-part lookback at Lee R. Raymond (1938–2026), the no-nonsense value-creator at Exxon Mobil (also see Part I and Part II).

The large, ever-growing list of climate “deniers” at DeSmog Blog documents a growing consensus against climate exaggeration and “green” energy inferiority. MasterResource has long documented this “backfire” at this Progressive Left, anti-fossil-fuel UK website.

The energy and climate views of Lee R. Raymond are presented by DeSmog below. Read and decide for yourself; was Exxon/Exxon-Mobil’s leader (1993–2005) correct in his time and today? Many scientific, economic, and political trends, in fact, are moving in the direction that his thinking would support.

Credentials

• Honorary Doctor of Laws, University of Minnesota (May 16, 2011).¹
• PhD, chemical engineering, University of Minnesota (1963).²
• BSc, chemical engineering, University of Wisconsin–Madison (1960).

“We’ve got to call out the greenwishing of energy’s future. Excitement is good; delusion isn’t. Let’s demand proof, not promises. Reliable, affordable energy isn’t a luxury—it’s the foundation of modern life—time to get serious about what energy technologies actually scales.”

I’ve been watching this energy debate for years, and I’m tired of the hype. We’ve got politicians, billionaires, and startups promising the next big “green” breakthrough that’ll solve everything from climate change to data center power demands, with no downsides.

But most of it is what I call greenwishing—a cousin to greenwashing, where they polish up promising energy ideas, but unproven, unscalable technologies with fancy renderings, press releases, and government grants, all while the real engineering and economics lag behind.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for clean, reliable, affordable energy.…