Nuclear power in the United States
Nuclear power in the United States is provided by 95 commercial reactors with a net capacity of 98 gigawatts (GW), with 64 pressurized water reactors and 32 boiling water reactors.[1] In 2019, they produced a total of 809.41 terawatt-hours of electricity,[1] which accounted for 20% of the nation's total electric energy generation.[2] In 2018, nuclear comprised nearly 50 percent of U.S. emission-free energy generation.[3][4]
As of September 2017, there are two new reactors under construction with a gross electrical capacity of 2,500 MW, while 34 reactors have been permanently shut down.[5][6] The United States is the world's largest producer of commercial nuclear power, and in 2013 generated 33% of the world's nuclear electricity.[7] With the past and future scheduled plant closings, China and Russia could surpass the United States in nuclear energy production.[8]
As of October 2014, the NRC has granted license renewals providing a 20-year extension to a total of 74 reactors. In early 2014, the NRC prepared to receive the first applications of license renewal beyond 60 years of reactor life, as early as 2017, a process which by law requires public involvement.[9] Licenses for 22 reactors are due to expire before the end of the next decade if no renewals are granted.[10] The Fort Calhoun Nuclear Generating Station was the most recent nuclear power plant to be decommissioned, on October 24, 2016. Another five aging reactors were permanently closed in 2013 and 2014 before their licenses expired because of high maintenance and repair costs at a time when natural gas prices have fallen: San Onofre 2 and 3 in California, Crystal River 3 in Florida, Vermont Yankee in Vermont, and Kewaunee in Wisconsin,[11][12] and New York State is seeking to close Indian Point in Buchanan, 30 miles from New York City.[12][13]
Most reactors began construction by 1974; following the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and changing economics, many planned projects were canceled. More than 100 orders for nuclear power reactors, many already under construction, were canceled in the 1970s and 1980s, bankrupting some companies. Up until 2013, there had also been no ground-breaking on new nuclear reactors at existing power plants since 1977. Then in 2012, the NRC approved construction of four new reactors at existing nuclear plants. Construction of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 began on March 9, 2013 but was abandoned on July 31, 2017 after the reactor supplier Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy protection on March 29, 2017.[14] On March 12, 2013 construction began on the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, the target in-service date for Unit 3 is November 2021.[15] On October 19, 2016 TVA's Unit-2 reactor at the Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station became the first US reactor to enter commercial operation since 1996.[16]
There was a revival of interest in nuclear power in the 2000s, with talk of a "nuclear renaissance", supported particularly by the Nuclear Power 2010 Program. A number of applications were made, but facing economic challenges, and later in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, most of these projects have been cancelled.
History
Emergence
Research into the peaceful uses of nuclear materials began in the United States under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission, created by the United States Atomic Energy Act of 1946. Medical scientists were interested in the effect of radiation upon the fast-growing cells of cancer, and materials were given to them, while the military services led research into other peaceful uses.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 encouraged private corporations to build nuclear reactors and a significant learning phase followed with many early partial core meltdowns and accidents at experimental reactors and research facilities.[17] This led to the introduction of the Price-Anderson Act in 1957, which was "...an implicit admission that nuclear power provided risks that producers were unwilling to assume without federal backing."[17] The Price-Anderson Act "...shields nuclear utilities, vendors and suppliers against liability claims in the event of a catastrophic accident by imposing an upper limit on private sector liability." Without such protection, private companies were unwilling to become involved. No other technology in the history of American industry has enjoyed such continuing blanket protection.[18]
Power reactor research
Argonne National Laboratory was assigned by the United States Atomic Energy Commission the lead role in developing commercial nuclear energy beginning in the 1940s. Between then and the turn of the 21st century, Argonne designed, built, and operated fourteen reactors[19] at its site southwest of Chicago, and another fourteen reactors[19] at the National Reactors Testing Station in Idaho.[20] These reactors included initial experiments and test reactors that were the progenitors of today's pressurized water reactors (including naval reactors), boiling water reactors, heavy water reactors, graphite-moderated reactors, and liquid-metal cooled fast reactors, one of which[21] was the first reactor in the world to generate electricity. Argonne and a number of other AEC contractors built a total of 52 reactors at the National Reactor Testing Station. Two were never operated; except for the Neutron Radiography Facility, all the other reactors were shut down by 2000.
In the early afternoon of December 20, 1951, Argonne director Walter Zinn and fifteen other Argonne staff members witnessed a row of four light bulbs light up in a nondescript brick building in the eastern Idaho desert. Electricity from a generator connected to Experimental Breeder Reactor I (EBR-I) flowed through them. This was the first time that a usable amount of electrical power had ever been generated from nuclear fission. Only days afterward, the reactor produced all the electricity needed for the entire EBR complex.[22] One ton of natural uranium can produce more than 40 gigawatt-hours of electricity — this is equivalent to burning 16,000 tons of coal or 80,000 barrels of oil.[23] More central to EBR-I's purpose than just generating electricity, however, was its role in proving that a reactor could create more nuclear fuel as a byproduct than it consumed during operation. In 1953, tests verified that this was the case.[24]
The US Navy took the lead, seeing the opportunity to have ships that could steam around the world at high speeds for several decades without needing to refuel, and the possibility of turning submarines into true full-time underwater vehicles. So, the Navy sent their "man in Engineering", then Captain Hyman Rickover, well known for his great technical talents in electrical engineering and propulsion systems in addition to his skill in project management, to the AEC to start the Naval Reactors project. Rickover's work with the AEC led to the development of the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), the first naval model of which was installed in the submarine USS Nautilus. This made the boat capable of operating under water full-time – demonstrating this ability by reaching the North Pole and surfacing through the Polar ice cap.
Start of commercial nuclear power
From the successful naval reactor program, plans were quickly developed for the use of reactors to generate steam to drive turbines turning generators. In April 1957, the SM-1 Nuclear Reactor in Fort Belvoir, Virginia was the first atomic power generator to go online and produce electrical energy to the U.S. power grid. On May 26, 1958 the first commercial nuclear power plant in the United States, Shippingport Atomic Power Station, was opened by President Dwight D. Eisenhower as part of his Atoms for Peace program. As nuclear power continued to grow throughout the 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission anticipated that more than 1,000 reactors would be operating in the United States by 2000.[25] As the industry continued to expand, the Atomic Energy Commission's development and regulatory functions were separated in 1974; the Department of Energy absorbed research and development, while the regulatory branch was spun off and turned into an independent commission known as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC or simply NRC).
Opposition to nuclear power
There has been considerable opposition to the use of nuclear power in the United States. The first U.S. reactor to face public opposition was Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station in 1957. It was built approximately 30 miles from Detroit and there was opposition from the United Auto Workers Union.[26] Pacific Gas & Electric planned to build the first commercially viable nuclear power plant in the US at Bodega Bay, north of San Francisco. The proposal was controversial and conflict with local citizens began in 1958.[27] The conflict ended in 1964, with the forced abandonment of plans for the power plant. Historian Thomas Wellock traces the birth of the anti-nuclear movement to the controversy over Bodega Bay.[27] Attempts to build a nuclear power plant in Malibu were similar to those at Bodega Bay and were also abandoned.[27]
Nuclear accidents continued into the 1960s with a small test reactor exploding at the Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One in Idaho Falls in January 1961 and a partial meltdown at the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station in Michigan in 1966.[28] In his 1963 book Change, Hope and the Bomb, David Lilienthal criticized nuclear developments, particularly the nuclear industry's failure to address the nuclear waste question.[29] J. Samuel Walker, in his book Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective, explains that the growth of the nuclear industry in the U.S. occurred in the 1970s as the environmental movement was being formed. Environmentalists saw the advantages of nuclear power in reducing air pollution, but were critical of nuclear technology on other grounds.[30] They were concerned about nuclear accidents, nuclear proliferation, high cost of nuclear power plants, nuclear terrorism and radioactive waste disposal.[31]
There were many anti-nuclear protests in the United States which captured national public attention during the 1970s and 1980s. These included the well-known Clamshell Alliance protests at Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant and the Abalone Alliance protests at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, where thousands of protesters were arrested. Other large protests followed the 1979 Three Mile Island accident.[32]
In New York City on September 23, 1979, almost 200,000 people attended a protest against nuclear power.[33] Anti-nuclear power protests preceded the shutdown of the Shoreham, Yankee Rowe, Rancho Seco, Maine Yankee, and about a dozen other nuclear power plants.[34]
Over-commitment and cancellations
By the mid-1970s it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as quickly as once believed. Cost overruns were sometimes a factor of ten above original industry estimates, and became a major problem. For the 75 nuclear power reactors built from 1966 to 1977, cost overruns averaged 207 percent. Opposition and problems were galvanized by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.[35]
Over-commitment to nuclear power brought about the financial collapse of the Washington Public Power Supply System, a public agency which undertook to build five large nuclear power plants in the 1970s. By 1983, cost overruns and delays, along with a slowing of electricity demand growth, led to cancellation of two WPPSS plants and a construction halt on two others. Moreover, WPPSS defaulted on $2.25 billion of municipal bonds, which is one of the largest municipal bond defaults in U.S. history. The court case that followed took nearly a decade to resolve.[36][37][38]
Eventually, more than 120 reactor orders were cancelled,[39] and the construction of new reactors ground to a halt. Al Gore has commented on the historical record and reliability of nuclear power in the United States:
Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable.[40]
Amory Lovins has also commented on the historical record of nuclear power in the United States:
Of all 132 U.S. nuclear plants built (52% of the 253 originally ordered), 21% were permanently and prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems, while another 27% have completely failed for a year or more at least once. The surviving U.S. nuclear plants produce ~90% of their full-time full-load potential, but even they are not fully dependable. Even reliably operating nuclear plants must shut down, on average, for 39 days every 17 months for refueling and maintenance, and unexpected failures do occur too.[41]
A cover story in the February 11, 1985, issue of Forbes magazine commented on the overall management of the nuclear power program in the United States:
The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale … only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible.[42]
Three Mile Island and after
_at_the_Capitol._-_NARA_-_540017.tif.jpg.webp)
The NRC reported "(...the Three Mile Island accident...) was the most serious in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history, even though it led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community."[43] The World Nuclear Association reports that "...more than a dozen major, independent studies have assessed the radiation releases and possible effects on the people and the environment around TMI since the 1979 accident at TMI-2. The most recent was a 13-year study on 32,000 people. None has found any adverse health effects such as cancers which might be linked to the accident."[44] Other nuclear power incidents within the US (defined as safety-related events in civil nuclear power facilities between INES Levels 1 and 3[45] include those at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant, which was the source of two of the top five highest conditional core damage frequency nuclear incidents in the United States since 1979, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.[46]
Despite the concerns which arose among the public after the Three Mile Island incident, the accident highlights the success of the reactor's safety systems. The radioactivity released as a result of the accident was almost entirely confined within the reinforced concrete containment structure. These containment structures, found at all nuclear power plants, were designed to successfully trap radioactive material in the event of a melt down or accident. At Three Mile Island, the containment structures operated exactly as it was designed to do, emerging successful in containing any radioactive energy. The low levels of radioactivity released post incident is considered harmless, resulting in zero injuries and deaths of residents living in proximity to the plant.
Despite many technical studies which asserted that the probability of a severe nuclear accident was low, numerous surveys showed that the public remained "very deeply distrustful and uneasy about nuclear power".[47] Some commentators have suggested that the public's consistently negative ratings of nuclear power are reflective of the industry's unique connection with nuclear weapons:[48]
[One] reason why nuclear power is seen differently to other technologies lies in its parentage and birth. Nuclear energy was conceived in secrecy, born of war, and first revealed to the world in horror. No matter how many proponents try to separate the peaceful atom from the weapon's atom, the connection is firmly embedded in the mind of the public.[48]
Several US nuclear power plants closed well before their design lifetimes, due to successful campaigns by anti-nuclear activist groups.[49] These include Rancho Seco in 1989 in California and Trojan in 1992 in Oregon. Humboldt Bay in California closed in 1976, 13 years after geologists discovered it was built on the Little Salmon Fault. Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant was completed but never operated commercially as an authorized Emergency Evacuation Plan could not be agreed on due to the political climate after the Three Mile Island accident and Chernobyl disaster. The last permanent closure of a US nuclear power plant was in 1997.[50]
US nuclear reactors were originally licensed to operate for 40-year periods. In the 1980s, the NRC determined that there were no technical issues that would preclude longer service.[51] Over half of US nuclear reactors are over 30 years old and almost all are over twenty years old.[52] As of 2011, more than 60 reactors have received 20-year extensions to their licensed lifetimes.[53] The average capacity factor for all US reactors has improved from below 60% in the 1970s and 1980s, to 92% in 2007.[54][55]
After the Three Mile Island accident, NRC-issued reactor construction permits, which had averaged more than 12 per year from 1967 through 1978, came to an abrupt halt; no permits were issued between 1979 and 2012 (in 2012, four planned new reactors received construction permits). Many permitted reactors were never built, or the projects were abandoned. Those that were completed after Three Mile island experienced a much longer time lag from construction permit to starting of operations. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself described its regulatory oversight of the long-delayed Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant as "a paradigm of fragmented and uncoordinated government decision making," and "a system strangling itself and the economy in red tape."[56] The number of operating power reactors in the US peaked at 112 in 1991, far fewer than the 177 that received construction permits. By 1998 the number of working reactors declined to 104, where it remains as of 2013. The loss of electrical generation from the eight fewer reactors since 1991 has been offset by power uprates of generating capacity at existing reactors.[57]
Despite the problems following Three Mile Island, output of nuclear-generated electricity in the US grew steadily, more than tripling over the next three decades: from 255 billion kilowatt-hours in 1979 (the year of the Three Mile Island accident), to 806 billion kilowatt-hours in 2007.[58] Part of the increase was due to the greater number of operating reactors, which increased by 51%: from 69 reactors in 1979, to 104 in 2007. Another cause was a large increase in the capacity factor over that period. In 1978, nuclear power plants generated electricity at only 64% of their rated output capacity. Performance suffered even further during and after Three Mile Island, as a series of new safety regulations from 1979 through the mid-1980s forced operators to repeatedly shut down reactors for required retrofits.[59] It was not until 1990 that the average capacity factor of US nuclear plants returned to the level of 1978. The capacity factor continued to rise, until 2001. Since 2001, US nuclear power plants have consistently delivered electric power at about 90% of their rated capacity.[60] In 2016, the number of power plants was at 100 with 4 under construction.
Effects of Fukushima
.jpg.webp){kind=spacer}
Following the 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced it would launch a comprehensive safety review of the 104 nuclear power reactors across the United States, at the request of President Obama. A total of 45 groups and individuals had formally asked the NRC to suspend all licensing and other activities at 21 proposed nuclear reactor projects in 15 states until the NRC had completed a thorough post-Fukushima reactor crisis examination. The petitioners also asked the NRC to supplement its own investigation by establishing an independent commission comparable to that set up in the wake of the serious, though less severe, 1979 Three Mile Island accident.[62][63] The Obama administration continued "to support the expansion of nuclear power in the United States, despite the crisis in Japan".[64]
An industry observer noted that post-Fukushima costs were likely to go up for both current and new nuclear power plants, due to increased requirements for on-site spent fuel management and elevated design basis threats.[65][66] License extensions for existing reactors will face additional scrutiny, with outcomes depending on plants meeting new requirements, and some extensions already granted for more than 60 of the 100 operating U.S. reactors could be revisited. On-site storage, consolidated long-term storage, and geological disposal of spent fuel is "likely to be reevaluated in a new light because of the Fukushima storage pool experience".[65] Mark Cooper suggested that the cost of nuclear power, which already had risen sharply in 2010 and 2011, could "climb another 50 percent due to tighter safety oversight and regulatory delays in the wake of the reactor calamity in Japan".[67]
In 2011, London-based bank HSBC said: "With Three Mile Island and Fukushima as a backdrop, the US public may find it difficult to support major nuclear new build and we expect that no new plant extensions will be granted either. Thus we expect the clean energy standard under discussion in US legislative chambers will see a far greater emphasis on gas and renewables plus efficiency".[68]
Competitiveness problems
In May 2015, a senior vice president of General Atomics stated that the U.S. nuclear industry was struggling because of comparatively low U.S. fossil fuel production costs, partly due to the rapid development of shale gas, and high financing costs for nuclear plants.[69]
In July 2016 Toshiba withdrew the U.S. design certification renewal for its Advanced Boiling Water Reactor because "it has become increasingly clear that energy price declines in the US prevent Toshiba from expecting additional opportunities for ABWR construction projects".[70]
In 2016, Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo directed the New York Public Service Commission to consider ratepayer-financed subsidies similar to those for renewable sources to keep nuclear power stations profitable in the competition against natural gas.[71][72]
In March 2018, FirstEnergy announced plans to deactivate the Beaver Valley, Davis-Besse, and Perry nuclear power plants, which are in the Ohio and Pennsylvania deregulated electricity market, for economic reasons during the next three years.[73]
In 2019 the Energy Information Administration revised the levelized cost of electricity from new advanced nuclear power plants to be $0.0775/kWh before government subsidies, using a 4.3% cost of capital (WACC) over a 30-year cost recovery period.[74] Financial firm Lazard also updated its levelized cost of electricity report costing new nuclear at between $0.118/kWh and $0.192/kWh using a commercial 7.7% cost of capital (WACC) (pre-tax 12% cost for the higher-risk 40% equity finance and 8% cost for the 60% loan finance) over a 40-year lifetime, making it the most expensive privately financed non-peaking generation technology other than residential solar PV.[75]
In August 2020, Exelon decided to close the Byron and Dresden plants in 2021 for economic reasons, despite the plants having licenses to operate for another 20 and 10 years respectively. Exelon will continue discussions with policymakers to try to obtain support to prevent the closures.[76]
Westinghouse Chapter 11 bankruptcy
On March 29, 2017, parent company Toshiba placed Westinghouse Electric Company in Chapter 11 bankruptcy because of $9 billion of losses from its nuclear reactor construction projects. The projects responsible for this loss are mostly the construction of four AP1000 reactors at Vogtle in Georgia and V. C. Summer in South Carolina.[77] The U.S. government had given $8.3 billion of loan guarantees for the financing of the Vogtle nuclear reactors being built in the U.S., which are delayed but remain under construction.[78] In July 2017, the V.C. Summer plant owners, the two largest utilities in South Carolina, terminated the project.[78] Peter A. Bradford, former Nuclear Regulatory Commission member, commented "They placed a big bet on this hallucination of a nuclear renaissance".[79]
The other U.S. new nuclear supplier, General Electric, had already scaled back its nuclear operations as it was concerned about the economic viability of new nuclear.[80]
In the 2000s interest in nuclear power renewed in the US, spurred by anticipated government curbs on carbon emissions, and a belief that fossil fuels would become more costly.[81] Ultimately however, following Westinghouse's bankruptcy, only two new nuclear reactors were under construction. In addition Watts Bar unit 2, whose construction was started in 1973 but suspended in the 1980s, was completed and commissioned in 2016.
Possible renaissance
In 2008, it was reported that The Shaw Group and Westinghouse would construct a factory at the Port of Lake Charles at Lake Charles, Louisiana to build components for the Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor.[82] On October 23, 2008, it was reported that Northrop Grumman and Areva were planning to construct a factory in Newport News, Virginia to build nuclear reactors.[83]
As of March 2009, the NRC had received applications to construct 26 new reactors[84] with applications for another 7 expected.[85][86] Six of these reactors were ordered.[87] Some applications were made to reserve places in a queue for government incentives available for the first three plants based on each innovative reactor design.[85]
In May 2009, John Rowe, chairman of Exelon, which operates 17 nuclear reactors, stated that he would cancel or delay construction of two new reactors in Texas without federal loan guarantees.[88] Following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, he remarked that the nuclear renaissance was dead. Amory Lovins added that "market forces had killed it years earlier".[89]
In July 2009, the proposed Victoria County Nuclear Power Plant was delayed, as the project proved difficult to finance.[90] As of April 2009, AmerenUE has suspended plans to build its proposed plant in Missouri because the state Legislature would not allow it to charge consumers for some of the project's costs before the plant's completion. The New York Times has reported that without that "financial and regulatory certainty" the company has said it could not proceed.[91] Previously, MidAmerican Energy Company decided to "end its pursuit of a nuclear power plant in Payette County, Idaho." MidAmerican cited cost as the primary factor in their decision.[92]
The federal government encouraged development through the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which coordinates efforts for building new plants,[93] and the Energy Policy Act.[94][95] In February 2010, President Barack Obama announced loan guarantees for two new reactors at Georgia Power's Vogtle Electric Generating Plant.[96][97] The reactors are "just the first of what we hope will be many new nuclear projects," said Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.
In February 2010, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 to block operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant after 2012, citing radioactive tritium leaks, misstatements in testimony by plant officials, a cooling tower collapse in 2007, and other problems. By state law, the renewal of the operating license must be approved by both houses of the legislature for the nuclear power plant to continue operation.[98]
In 2010 some companies withdrew their applications.[99][100] In September 2010, Matthew Wald from the New York Times reported that "the nuclear renaissance is looking small and slow at the moment".[101]
In the first quarter of 2011, renewable energy contributed 11.7 percent of total U.S. energy production (2.245 quadrillion BTUs of energy), surpassing energy production from nuclear power (2.125 quadrillion BTUs).[102] 2011 was the first year since 1997 that renewables exceeded nuclear in US total energy production.[103]
In August 2011, the TVA board of directors voted to move forward with the construction of the unit one reactor at the Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station.[104] In addition, the Tennessee Valley Authority petitioned to restart construction on the first two units at Bellefonte. As of March 2012, many contractors had been laid off and the ultimate cost and timing for Bellefonte 1 will depend on work at another reactor TVA is completing – Watts Bar 2 in Tennessee. In February 2012, TVA said the Watts Bar 2 project was running over budget and behind schedule.[105]
The first two of the newly approved units were Units 3 and 4 at the existing Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. As of December 2011, construction by Southern Company on the two new nuclear units had begun. They were expected to be delivering commercial power by 2016 and 2017, respectively.[106][107] One week after Southern received its license to begin major construction, a dozen groups sued to stop the expansion project, stating "public safety and environmental problems since Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor accident have not been taken into account".[108] The lawsuit was dismissed in July 2012.
In 2012, The NRC approved construction permits for four new nuclear reactor units at two existing plants, the first permits in 34 years.[109] The first new permits, for two proposed reactors at the Vogtle plant, were approved in February 2012.[110] NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko cast the lone dissenting vote, citing safety concerns stemming from Japan's 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster: "I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima never happened".[111]
| Operating reactors, building new reactors |
Also in 2012, Units 2 and 3 at the SCANA Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina were approved, and were scheduled to come online in 2017 and 2018, respectively.[109] After several reforecasted completion dates the project was abandoned in July 2017.[112]
Other reactors were under consideration – a third reactor at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Maryland, a third and fourth reactor at South Texas Nuclear Generating Station, together with two other reactors in Texas, four in Florida, and one in Missouri. However, these have all been postponed or canceled.[101]
In August 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that the NRC's rules for the temporary storage and permanent disposal of nuclear waste stood in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, rendering the NRC legally unable to grant final licenses.[113] This ruling was founded on the absence of a final waste repository plan.
In March 2013, the concrete for the basemat of Block 2 of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station was poured. First concrete for Unit 3 was completed on November 4, 2013. Construction on unit 3 of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant started that month. Unit 4 was begun in November 2013. However, following Westinghouse's bankruptcy, the project was abandoned.
In 2015 the Energy Information Administration estimated that nuclear power's share of U.S. generation would fall from 19% to 15% by 2040 in its central estimate (High Oil and Gas Resource case). However, as total generation increases 24% by 2040 in the central estimate, the absolute amount of nuclear generation remains fairly flat.[114]
In 2017, the US Energy Information Administration projected that US nuclear generating capacity would decline 23 percent from its 2016 level of 99.1 GW, to 76.5 GW in 2050, and the nuclear share of electrical generation to go from 20% in 2016 down to 11% in 2050. Driving the decline will be retirements of existing units, to be partially offset by additional units currently under construction and expected capacity expansions of existing reactors.[115]
The Blue Castle Project is set to begin construction near Green River, Utah in 2023.[116] The plant will use 53,500 acre feet (66 million cubic meters) of water annually from the Green River once both reactors are commissioned.[117] The first reactor is scheduled to come online in 2028, with the second reactor coming online in 2030.[116]
On 4 June 2018, World Nuclear News reported, "President Donald Trump has directed Secretary of Energy Rick Perry to take immediate action to stop the loss of 'fuel-secure power facilities' from the country's power grid, including nuclear power plants that are facing premature retirement."[118]
On 23 August 2020, Forbes reported, that "[the 2020 Democratic Party platform] marks the first time since 1972 that the Democratic Party has said anything positive in its platform about nuclear energy".[119]
Nuclear power plants
As of 2020, a total of 88 nuclear power plants have been built in the United States, 86 of which have had at least one operational reactor.
| Name | Unit | Reactor | Status | Capacity in MW | Construction start | Commercial operation | Closure | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Model | Net | Gross | ||||||
| Arkansas Nuclear One | 1 | PWR | B & W (DRY-Cont.) | Operational | 846 | 1 October 1968 | 21 May 1974 | ||
| 2 | PWR | CE (DRY) | Operational | 930 | 6 December 1968 | 1 September 1978 | |||
| Beaver Valley | 1 | PWR | WH 3-loop (DRY) | Operational | 970 | 26 June 1970 | 2 July 1976 | ||
| 2 | PWR | WH 3-loop (DRY) | Operational | 920 | 3 May 1974 | 14 August 1987 | |||
| Bellefonte | 1 | Unfinished | 1,100 | 1975 | |||||
| 2 | Unfinished | 1,100 | 1975 | ||||||
| Big Rock Point[120] | 1 | BWR | BWR-1 | Shut down/dismantled | 67 | 1 May 1960 | 29 March 1963 | 29 August 1997 | |
| Blue Castle Project[121] | 1 | Planned | 1,500 | (2023) | (2028) | ||||
| 2 | Planned | 1,500 | (2023) | (2028) | |||||
| Braidwood | 1[122] | PWR | WH 4-loop (DRY) | Operational | 1,194 | 1,270 | 1 August 1975 | 29 July 1988 | |
| 2[123] | PWR | WH 4-loop (DRY) | Operational | 1,121 | 1 August 1975 | 17 October 1988 | |||
| Browns Ferry | 1 | BWR | BWR-4 (WET) | Operational | 1,310 | 1 May 1967 | 1 August 1974 | ||
| 2 | BWR | BWR-4 (WET) | Operational | 1,310 | 1 May 1967 | 1 March 1975 | |||
| 3 | BWR | BWR-4 (WET) | Operational | 1,310 | 1 July 1968 | 1 March 1977 | |||
| Brunswick | 1 | BWR | BWR-4 (WET) | Operational | 938 | 7 February 1970 | 18 March 1977[124] | ||
| 2 | BWR | BWR-4 (WET) | Operational | 920 | 7 February 1970 | 3 November 1975[125] | |||
| Byron | 1 | PWR | WH 4-loop (DRY) | Operational | 1,168 | 1 April 1975 | 16 September 1985 | ||
| 2 | PWR | WH 4-loop (DRY) | Operational | 1,168 | 1 April 1975 | 2 August 1987 | |||
| Callaway | 1 | PWR | WH 4-loop (DRY) | Operational | 1,300 | 1 September 1975 | 19 December 1984 | ||
| Calvert Cliffs | 1 | PWR | CE 2-loop (DRY) | Operational | 873 | 1 June 1968 | 8 May 1977 | ||
| 2 | PWR | CE 2-loop (DRY) | Operational | 863 | 1 June 1968 | 1 April 1977 | |||
| Catawba | 1 | PWR | WH 4-loop (ICECOND.) | Operational | 1,129 | 1 May 1974 | 29 June 1985 | ||
| 2 | PWR | WH 4-loop (ICECOND.) | Operational | 1,129 | 1 May 1974 | 19 August 1986 | |||
| Clinton | 1 | BWR | BWR-6 (WET) | Operational | 1,043 | 1 October 1975 | 24 November 1987 | ||
| Columbia | 1 | BWR | BWR-5 (WET) | Operational | 1,170 | 1 August 1972 | 13 December 1984 | ||
| Comanche Peak | 1 | PWR | WH 4-loop (DRY) | Operational | 1,084 | 19 December 1974 | 13 August 1990 | ||
| 2 | PWR | WH 4-loop (DRY) | Operational | 1,124 | 19 December 1974 | 3 August 1993 | |||
| Connecticut Yankee | 1 | PWR | WH DRY | Shut down/dismantled | 582 | 1 May 1964 | 1 January 1968 | 5 December 1996 | |
| Cooper | 1 | BWR | BWR-4 (WET) | Operational | 770 | 1 June 1968 | 1 July 1974 | ||
| Crystal River 3 | 1 | B & W (DRY) | Shut down | 860 | 25 September 1968 | 13 March 1977 | 5 February 2013 | ||
| Davis-Besse | 1 | PWR | B & W (DRY) | Operational | 965 | 1 September 1970 | 31 July 1978 | ||
| Diablo Canyon | 1 | PWR | WH DRY | Operational | 1,122 | 23 April 1968 | 7 May 1985 | ||
| 2 | WH PWR | DRY | Operational | 1,118 | 9 December 1970 | 13 March 1986 | |||
| Donald C. Cook | 1 | PWR | WH (ICECOND.) | Operational | 1,020 | 25 March 1969 | 27 August 1975 | ||
| 2 | PWR | WH (ICECOND.) | Operational | 1,090 | 25 March 1969 | 1 July 1978 | |||
| Dresden | 1 | BWR | BWR-1 | Shut down | 210 | 1 May 1956 | 4 July 1960 | 31 October 1978 | |
| 2 | BWR | BWR-3 (WET) | Operational | 867 | 10 January 1966 | 9 June 1970 | |||
| 3 | BWR | BWR-3 (WET) | Operational | 867 | 14 October 1966 | 16 November 1971 | |||
| Duane Arnold | 1 | BWR | BWR-4 (WET) | Shut down | 581 | 22 May 1970 | 1 February 1975 | 10 August 2020 | |
| Edwin I. Hatch | 1 | BWR | BWR-4 (WET) | Operational | 924 | 30 September 1968 | 31 December 1975 | ||
| 2 | BWR | BWR-4 (WET) | Operational | 924 | 1 February 1972 | 5 September 1979 | |||
| Elk River | 1 | BWR | Shut down/dismantled | 22 | 1 July 1964 | 1 February 1968 | |||
| Fermi | 1 | FBR | Prototype | Shut down | 69 | 8 August 1956 | 7 August 1966 | 29 November 1972 | |
| 2 | BWR | BWR-4 (WET) | Operational | 1,098 | 26 September 1972 | 23 January 1988 | |||
| Fort Calhoun | 1 | PWR | CE 2-loop (WET) | Shut down | 476 | 1966 | 9 August 1973 | 24 October 2016 | |
| Fort St. Vrain | 1 | Shut down | 330 | 1 July 1979 | 29 August 1989 | ||||
| Ginna | 1 | PWR | WH 2-loop (DRY) | Operational | 610 | 25 April 1966 | 1 June 1970 | ||
| Grand Gulf | 1 | BWR | BWR-6 (WET) | Operational | 1,500 | 1 July 1985 | |||
| H. B. Robinson | 1 | PWR | WH 3-loop (DRY) | Operational | 735 | 7 March 1971 | |||
| Hallam | 1 | Shut down/dismantled | 75 | 1963 | 1969 | ||||
| Hartsville | A1 | BWR | Unfinished | 1,233 | 1,269 | 1975 | 29 August 1984 | ||
| A2 | BWR | Unfinished | 1,233 | 1,269 | 1975 | 29 August 1984 | |||
| B1 | BWR | Unfinished | 1,233 | 1,269 | 1975 | 22 March 1983 | |||
| B2 | BWR | Unfinished | 1,233 | 1,269 | 1975 | 22 March 1983 | |||
| Hope Creek | 1 | BWR | BWR-4 (WET) | Operational | 1,059 | 20 December 1986 | |||
| Humboldt Bay | 1 | BWR | BWR-1 | Shut down/dismantled | 63 | August 1963 | July 1976 | ||
| Indian Point | 1 | PWR | Shut down | 275 | 1 May 1956 | 1 October 1962 | 31 October 1974 | ||
| 2 | PWR | WH 4-loop (DRY) | Shut down | 1,032 | 14 October 1966 | 1 August 1974 | 30 April 2020[126] | ||
| 3 | PWR | WH 4-loop (DRY) | Operational | 1,051 | 1 November 1968 | 30 August 1976 | (2021)[126] | ||
| James A. FitzPatrick | 1 | BWR | BWR-4 (WET) | Operational | 838 | July 1975 | |||
| Joseph M. Farley | 1 | PWR | WH (DRY) | Operational | 900 | 1 December 1977 | |||
| 2 | PWR | WH (DRY) | Operational | 920 | 30 July 1981 | ||||
| Kewaunee | 1 | PWR | WH 2-loop (DRY) | Shut down | 556 | 16 June 1974 | 7 May 2013 | ||
| La Crosse | 1 | BWR | BWR-1 | Shut down/dismantled | 50 | 7 November 1969 | 30 April 1987 | ||
| LaSalle County | 1 | BWR | BWR-5 (WET) | Operational | 1,200 | 1 January 1984 | |||
| 2 | BWR | BWR-5 (WET) | Operational | 1,200 | 19 October 1984 | ||||
| Limerick | 1 | BWR | BWR-5 (WET) | Operational | 1,134 | 1 February 1986 | |||
| 2 | BWR | BWR-5 (WET) | Operational | 1,134 | 8 January 1990 | ||||
| Maine Yankee | 1 | PWR | WH (DRY) | Shut down/dismantled | 860 | 1 October 1968 | 28 December 1972[127] | 1 August 1997[127] | |
| Marble Hill | 1 | Unfinished | 1977 | 1984 | |||||
| McGuire | 1 | PWR | WH (ICECOND.) | Operational | 1,100 | 1 December 1981 | |||
| 2 | PWR | WH (ICECOND.) | Operational | 1,100 | 1 March 1984 | ||||
| Millstone | 1 | BWR | BWR-3 (WET) | Shut down | 1 May 1966 | 28 December 1970 | 21 July 1998 | ||
| 2 | PWR | CE 2-loop (DRY) | Operational | 882 | 1 November 1969 | 26 December 1975 | |||
| 3 | PWR | WH (DRY) | Operational | 1,155 | 9 August 1974 | 23 April 1986 | |||
| Monticello | 1 | BWR | BWR-3 (WET) | Operational | 647 | 30 June 1971 | |||
| N-Reactor | 1 | Shut down | 1964 | December 1986 | |||||
| Nine Mile Point | 1 | BWR | BWR-2 (WET) | Operational | 621 | 12 April 1965 | 1 December 1969 | ||
| 2 | BWR | BWR-5 (WET) | Operational | 1,140 | 1 August 1975 | 11 March 1988 | |||
| North Anna | 1 | PWR | WH (DRY) | Operational | 903 | 6 June 1978 | |||
| 2 | PWR | WH (DRY) | Operational | 972 | 14 December 1980 | ||||
| North Anna | 3 | ESBWR | WET | Planned | 1,500 | ||||
| Oconee | 1 | PWR | B & W (DRY) | Operational | 846 | 15 July 1973 | |||
| 2 | PWR | B & W (DRY) | Operational | 846 | 9 September 1974 | ||||
| 3 | PWR | B & W (DRY) | Operational | 846 | 16 December 1974 | ||||
| Oyster Creek | 1 | BWR | BWR-2 (WET) | Shut down | 636 | 15 December 1964 | 23 December 1969 | 17 September 2018 | |
| Palisades | 1 | PWR | CE 2-loop (DRY) | Operational | 800 | 14 March 1967 | 31 December 1971 | (2022)[128] | |
| Palo Verde | 1 | PWR | CE80 2-loop (DRY) | Operational | 1,447 | 25 May 1976 | 28 January 1986 | ||
| 2 | PWR | CE80 2-loop (DRY) | Operational | 1,447 | 1 June 1976 | 19 September 1986 | |||
| 3 | PWR | CE80 2-loop (DRY) | Operational | 1,447 | 1 June 1976 | 8 January 1988 | |||
| Parr | 1 | PHWR | CVTR | Shut down/dismantled | 17 | 18 December 1963 | 10 January 1967 | ||
| Pathfinder | 1 | BWR | BWR-1 | Shut down/dismantled | 59 | July 1966 | October 1967 | ||
| Peach Bottom | 1 | GCR | Prototype | Shut down | 1 February 1962 | 1966 | 1974 | ||
| 2 | BWR | BWR-4 (WET) | Operational | 1,382 | 31 January 1968 | 5 July 1974 | |||
| 3 | BWR | BWR-4 (WET) | Operational | 1,382 | 31 January 1968 | 23 December 1974 | |||
| Perry | 1 | BWR | BWR-6 (WET) | Operational | 1,231 | 18 November 1987 | |||
| Pilgrim | 1 | BWR | BWR-3 (WET) | Shut down | 677 | 711 | 26 August 1968 | 9 December 1972 | 31 May 2019 |
| Piqua | 1 | Shut down/decommissioned | 12.5 | 1963 | 1966 | ||||
| Point Beach | 1 | PWR | WH 2-loop (DRY) | Operational | 510 | 21 December 1970 | |||
| 2 | PWR | WH 2-loop (DRY) | Operational | 516 | 1 October 1972 | ||||
| Prairie Island | 1 | PWR | WH 2-loop (DRY) | Operational | 548 | 16 December 1973 | |||
| 2 | PWR | WH 2-loop (DRY) | Operational | 548 | 21 December 1974 | ||||
| Quad Cities | 1 | BWR | BWR-4 (WET) | Operational | 912 | 18 February 1973 | |||
| 2 | BWR | BWR-4 (WET) | Operational | 912 | 10 March 1973 | ||||
| Rancho Seco | 1 | PWR | WH (DRY) | Shut down/dismantled | 913 | 17 April 1975 | 23 October 2009 | ||
| River Bend | 1 | BWR | BWR-6 (WET) | Operational | 978 | 16 June 1986 | |||
| Salem | 1 | PWR | WH 3-loop (DRY) | Operational | 1,174 | 30 June 1977 | |||
| 2 | PWR | WH 3-loop (DRY) | Operational | 1,130 | 31 October 1981 | ||||
| San Onofre | 1 | PWR | WH (DRY) | Shut down/dismantled | 436 | 456 | 1964 | 1 January 1968 | 30 November 1992 |
| 2 | PWR | CE (DRY) | Shut down | 1,172 | 8 August 1983 | 7 June 2013 | |||
| 3 | PWR | CE (DRY) | Shut down | 1,178 | 1 April 1984 | 7 June 2013 | |||
| Satsop | 1 | PWR | CE (DRY) | Unfinished | 1,240 | 1 May 1977 | |||
| 2 | PWR | CE (DRY) | Unfinished | 1,240 | 1 May 1977 | ||||
| Saxton | 1 | PWR | Shut down/dismantled | November 1961 | May 1972 | ||||
| Seabrook Station | 1 | PWR | WH (DRY) | Operational | 1,194 | 15 March 1990 | |||
| Sequoyah | 1 | PWR | WH 4-Loop (ICECOND.) | Operational | 1,148 | 1 July 1981 | |||
| 2 | PWR | WH 4-Loop (ICECOND.) | Operational | 1,126 | 1 June 1982 | ||||
| Shearon Harris | A-1 | PWR | WH 3-Loop (DRY) | Operational | 900 | 960 | 28 January 1978 | 2 May 1987 | |
| A-2 | PWR | WH 3-Loop | Unfinished | 900 | 960 | 1 January 1978 | |||
| A-3 | PWR | WH 3-Loop | Unfinished | 900 | 960 | 1 January 1978 | |||
| A-4 | PWR | WH 3-Loop | Unfinished | 900 | 960 | 1 January 1978 | |||
| B-2 | PWR | AP1000 | Never Built | 1117 | |||||
| B-3 | PWR | AP1000 | Never Built | 1117 | |||||
| Shippingport | 1 | PWR | WH | Shut down/dismantled | 60 | 6 September 1954 | 26 May 1958 | December 1989 | |
| Shoreham | 1 | Shut down | 820 | 1 November 1972 | 1 August 1986 | 1 May 1989 | |||
| Sodium Reactor Experiment | 1 | FBR | Shut down/dismantled | 6.5 | 1954 | 12 July 1957 | 15 February 1964 | ||
| South Texas | 1 | PWR | WH 4-loop (DRY) | Operational | 1,250 | 22 December 1975 | 25 August 1988 | ||
| 2 | PWR | WH 4-loop (DRY) | Operational | 1,250 | 22 December 1975 | 19 June 1989 | |||
| St. Lucie | 1 | PWR | CE (DRY) | Operational | 1,002 | 1 July 1970 | 1 March 1976 | ||
| 2 | PWR | CE (DRY) | Operational | 1,002 | 2 June 1977 | 10 June 1983 | |||
| Surry | 1 | PWR | WH 3-loop (DRY) | Operational | 799 | 25 June 1968 | 22 December 1972 | ||
| 2 | PWR | WH 3-loop (DRY) | Operational | 799 | 1 May 1973 | ||||
| Susquehanna | 1 | BWR | BWR-5 (WET) | Operational | 1,350 | 2 November 1973 | 12 November 1982 | ||
| 2 | BWR | BWR-5 (WET) | Operational | 1,350 | 27 June 1984 | ||||
| Three Mile Island | 1 | PWR | B & W (DRY) | Shut down | 852 | 18 May 1968 | 2 September 1974 | 20 September 2019 | |
| 2 | PWR | B & W (DRY) | Shut down/Core melt | 906 | 1 November 1969 | 30 December 1978 | 1979 | ||
| Trojan | 1 | PWR | WH (DRY) | Shut down/dismantled | 1,130 | 1 February 1970 | 20 May 1976 | 1992 | |
| Turkey Point | 1 | PWR | WH 3-loop (DRY) | Operational | 900 | 27 April 1967 | 14 December 1972 | ||
| 2 | PWR | WH 3-loop (DRY) | Operational | 900 | 27 April 1967 | 7 September 1973 | |||
| 3 | PWR | AP1000 | Planned | 1000 | 1135 | ||||
| 4 | PWR | AP1000 | Planned | 1000 | 1135 | ||||
| UAMPS (SMR) | 1 | PWR | NuScale | Planned | 45 | 50 | |||
| 2 | PWR | NuScale | Planned | 45 | 50 | ||||
| 3 | PWR | NuScale | Planned | 45 | 50 | ||||
| 4 | PWR | NuScale | Planned | 45 | 50 | ||||
| 5 | PWR | NuScale | Planned | 45 | 50 | ||||
| 6 | PWR | NuScale | Planned | 45 | 50 | ||||
| 7 | PWR | NuScale | Planned | 45 | 50 | ||||
| 8 | PWR | NuScale | Planned | 45 | 50 | ||||
| 9 | PWR | NuScale | Planned | 45 | 50 | ||||
| 10 | PWR | NuScale | Planned | 45 | 50 | ||||
| 11 | PWR | NuScale | Planned | 45 | 50 | ||||
| 12 | PWR | NuScale | Planned | 45 | 50 | ||||
| Vallecitos | 1 | BWR | BWR-1 | Shut down | 25 | October 1957 | December 1963 | ||
| Vermont Yankee | 1 | BWR | BWR-4 (WET) | Shut down | 514[129] | 30 November 1972 | 29 December 2014[130] | ||
| Virgil C. Summer | 1 | PWR | WH 3-Loop (DRY) | Operational | 1,000 | 21 March 1973 | 1 January 1984 | ||
| 2 | PWR | AP1000 | Unfinished | 1,117 | 1,250 | 9 March 2013 | 31 July 2017 | ||
| 3 | PWR | AP1000 | Unfinished | 1,117 | 1,250 | 4 November 2013 | 31 July 2017 | ||
| Vogtle | 1 | PWR | WH (DRY) | Operational | 1,215 | 1 August 1976 | 1 June 1987 | ||
| 2 | PWR | WH (DRY) | Operational | 1,215 | 1 August 1976 | 20 May 1989 | |||
| 3 | PWR | AP1000 (DRY) | Under construction | 1,250 | 12 March 2013 | (2021)[131] | |||
| 4 | PWR | AP1000 (DRY) | Under construction | 1,250 | 19 November 2013 | (2022)[131] | |||
| Waterford | 1 | PWR | CE 2-loop (DRY) | Operational | 1,218 | 14 November 1974 | 24 September 1985 | ||
| Watts Bar | 1 | PWR | WH (ICECOND.) | Operational | 1,167 | 20 July 1973 | 27 May 1996 | ||
| 2 | PWR | WH (ICECOND.) | Operational | 1,165 | 1 September 1973 | 4 June 2016 | |||
| Wolf Creek | 1 | PWR | WH (DRY) | Operational | 1,250 | 31 May 1977 | 3 September 1985 | ||
| Yankee Rowe | 1 | PWR | WH (DRY) | Shut down/dismantled | 185 | 1956 | 1960 | 26 February 1992 | |
| Zion | 1 | PWR | WH (DRY) | Shut down/decommissioned | 1,040 | 1 December 1968 | June 1973 | 13 February 1998 | |
| 2 | PWR | WH (DRY) | Shut down/decommissioned | 1,040 | 1 December 1968 | December 1973 | 13 February 1998 | ||
In 2019 the NRC approved a second 20-year licence extension for Turkey Point units 3 and 4, the first time NRC had extended licences to 80 years total lifetime. Similar extensions for about 20 reactors are planned or intended, with more expected in the future.[132]
Safety and accidents
Regulation of nuclear power plants in the United States is conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which divides the nation into 4 administrative divisions.
Three Mile Island
On March 28, 1979, equipment failures and operator error contributed to loss of coolant and a partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant in Pennsylvania. The mechanical failures were compounded by the initial failure of plant operators to recognize the situation as a loss-of-coolant accident due to inadequate training and human factors, such as human-computer interaction design oversights relating to ambiguous control room indicators in the power plant's user interface.[133] The scope and complexity of the accident became clear over the course of five days, as employees of Met Ed, Pennsylvania state officials, and members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) tried to understand the problem, communicate the situation to the press and local community, decide whether the accident required an emergency evacuation, and ultimately end the crisis. The NRC's authorization of the release of 40,000 gallons of radioactive waste water directly in the Susquehanna River led to a loss of credibility with the press and community.[133]
The Three Mile Island accident inspired Perrow's book Normal Accidents, where a nuclear accident occurs, resulting from an unanticipated interaction of multiple failures in a complex system. TMI was an example of a normal accident because it was "unexpected, incomprehensible, uncontrollable and unavoidable".[134] The World Nuclear Association has stated that cleanup of the damaged nuclear reactor system at TMI-2 took nearly 12 years and cost approximately US$973 million.[135] Benjamin K. Sovacool, in his 2007 preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, estimated that the TMI accident caused a total of $2.4 billion in property damages.[136] The health effects of the Three Mile Island accident are widely, but not universally, agreed to be very low level.[135][137] The accident triggered protests around the world.[138]
The 1979 Three Mile Island accident was a pivotal event that led to questions about U.S. nuclear safety.[139] Earlier events had a similar effect, including a 1975 fire at Browns Ferry, the 1976 testimonials of three concerned GE nuclear engineers, the GE Three. In 1981, workers inadvertently reversed pipe restraints at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant reactors, compromising seismic protection systems, which further undermined confidence in nuclear safety. All of these well-publicised events, undermined public support for the U.S. nuclear industry in the 1970s and the 1980s.[139]
Other incidents
On March 5, 2002, maintenance workers discovered that corrosion had eaten a football-sized hole into the reactor vessel head of the Davis-Besse plant. Although the corrosion did not lead to an accident, this was considered to be a serious nuclear safety incident.[140][141] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission kept Davis-Besse shut down until March 2004, so that FirstEnergy was able to perform all the necessary maintenance for safe operations. The NRC imposed its largest fine ever—more than $5 million—against FirstEnergy for the actions that led to the corrosion. The company paid an additional $28 million in fines under a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice.[140]
In 2013 the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station was permanently retired when premature wear was found in the Steam Generators which had been replaced in 2010–2011.
The nuclear industry in the United States has maintained one of the best industrial safety records in the world with respect to all kinds of accidents. For 2008, the industry hit a new low of 0.13 industrial accidents per 200,000 worker-hours.[142] This is improved over 0.24 in 2005, which was still a factor of 14.6 less than the 3.5 number for all manufacturing industries.[143] However, more than a quarter of U.S. nuclear plant operators "have failed to properly tell regulators about equipment defects that could imperil reactor safety", according to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission report.[144]
As of February 2009, the NRC requires that the design of new power plants ensures that the reactor containment would remain intact, cooling systems would continue to operate, and spent fuel pools would be protected, in the event of an aircraft crash. This is an issue that has gained attention since the September 11 attacks. The regulation does not apply to the 100 commercial reactors now operating.[145] However, the containment structures of nuclear power plants are among the strongest structures ever built by mankind; independent studies have shown that existing plants would easily survive the impact of a large commercial jetliner without loss of structural integrity.[146]
Recent concerns have been expressed about safety issues affecting a large part of the nuclear fleet of reactors. In 2012, the Union of Concerned Scientists, which tracks ongoing safety issues at operating nuclear plants, found that "leakage of radioactive materials is a pervasive problem at almost 90 percent of all reactors, as are issues that pose a risk of nuclear accidents".[147] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission reports that radioactive tritium has leaked from 48 of the 65 nuclear sites in the United States.[148]
Post-Fukushima concerns
Following the Japanese Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, according to Black & Veatch’s annual utility survey that took place after the disaster, of the 700 executives from the US electric utility industry that were surveyed, nuclear safety was the top concern.[149] There are likely to be increased requirements for on-site spent fuel management and elevated design basis threats at nuclear power plants.[65][66] License extensions for existing reactors will face additional scrutiny, with outcomes depending on the degree to which plants can meet new requirements, and some extensions already granted for more than 60 of the 104 operating U.S. reactors could be revisited. On-site storage, consolidated long-term storage, and geological disposal of spent fuel is "likely to be reevaluated in a new light because of the Fukushima storage pool experience".[65] In March 2011, nuclear experts told Congress that spent-fuel pools at US nuclear power plants are too full. They say the entire US spent-fuel policy should be overhauled in light of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents.[150]
David Lochbaum, chief nuclear safety officer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, has repeatedly questioned the safety of the Fukushima I Plant's General Electric Mark 1 reactor design, which is used in almost a quarter of the United States' nuclear fleet.[151]
About one third of reactors in the US are boiling water reactors, the same technology which was involved in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. There are also eight nuclear power plants located along the seismically active West coast. Twelve of the American reactors that are of the same vintage as the Fukushima Daiichi plant are in seismically active areas.[152] Earthquake risk is often measured by "Peak Ground Acceleration", or PGA, and the following nuclear power plants have a two percent or greater chance of having PGA over 0.15g in the next 50 years: Diablo Canyon, Calif.; San Onofre, Calif.; Sequoyah, Tenn.; H.B. Robinson, SC.; Watts Bar, Tenn.; Virgil C. Summer, SC.; Vogtle, GA.; Indian Point, NY.; Oconee, SC.; and Seabrook, NH. Most nuclear plants are designed to keep operating up to 0.2g, but can withstand PGA much higher than 0.2.[152]
| Date | Plant | Location | Description | Cost (in millions 2006 $) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| March 28, 1979 | Three Mile Island | Londonderry Township, Pennsylvania | Loss of coolant and partial core meltdown, see Three Mile Island accident and Three Mile Island accident health effects | US$2,400 |
| March 9, 1985 | Browns Ferry | Athens, Alabama | Instrumentation systems malfunction during startup, which led to suspension of operations at all three Units | US$1,830 |
| April 11, 1986 | Pilgrim | Plymouth, Massachusetts | Recurring equipment problems force emergency shutdown of Boston Edison's plant | US$1,001 |
| March 31, 1987 | Peach Bottom | Delta, Pennsylvania | Units 2 and 3 shutdown due to cooling malfunctions and unexplained equipment problems | US$400 |
| December 19, 1987 | Nine Mile Point | Scriba, New York | Malfunctions force Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation to shut down Unit 1 | US$150 |
| February 20, 1996 | Millstone | Waterford, Connecticut | Leaking valve forces shutdown of Units 1 and 2, multiple equipment failures found | US$254 |
| September 2, 1996 | Crystal River | Crystal River, Florida | Balance-of-plant equipment malfunction forces shutdown and extensive repairs | US$384 |
| February 1, 2010 | Vermont Yankee | Vernon, Vermont | Deteriorating underground pipes leak radioactive tritium into groundwater supplies | US$700 |
Security and deliberate attacks
The United States 9/11 Commission has said that nuclear power plants were potential targets originally considered for the September 11, 2001 attacks. If terrorist groups could sufficiently damage safety systems to cause a core meltdown at a nuclear power plant, and/or sufficiently damage spent fuel pools, such an attack could lead to widespread radioactive contamination. The research scientist Harold Feiveson has written that nuclear facilities should be made extremely safe from attacks that could release massive quantities of radioactivity into the community. New reactor designs have features of passive nuclear safety, which may help. In the United States, the NRC carries out "Force on Force" (FOF) exercises at all Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) sites at least once every three years.[35]
Uranium supply
A 2012 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded: “The currently defined uranium resource base is more than adequate to meet high-case requirements through 2035 and well into the foreseeable future.”[155]
At the start of 2013, the identified remaining worldwide uranium resources stood at 5.90 million tons, enough to supply the world's reactors at current consumption rates for more than 120 years, even if no additional uranium deposits are discovered in the meantime. Undiscovered uranium resources as of 2013 were estimated to be 7.7 million tons. Doubling the price of uranium would increase the identified reserves as of 2013 to 7.64 million tons.[156] Over the decade 2003–2013, the identified reserves of uranium (at the same price of US$130/kg) rose from 4.59 million tons in 2003 to 5.90 million tons in 2013, an increase of 28%.[157]
Fuel cycle
Uranium mining
The United States has the 4th largest uranium reserves in the world.[158] The U.S. has its most prominent uranium reserves in New Mexico, Texas, and Wyoming. The U.S. Department of Energy has approximated there to be at least 300 million pounds of uranium in these areas.[159] Domestic production increased until 1980, after which it declined sharply due to low uranium prices. In 2012 the United States mined 17% of the uranium consumed by its nuclear power plants. The remainder was imported, principally from Canada, Russia and Australia.[158] Uranium is mined using several methods including open-pit mining, underground mining, and in-situ leaching.[160]
Uranium enrichment
There is one gas centrifuge enrichment plant currently in commercial operation in the US. The National Enrichment Facility, operated by URENCO east of Eunice, New Mexico, was the first uranium enrichment plant in 30 years to be built in the US. The plant started enriching uranium in 2010.[161] Two additional gas centrifuge plants have been licensed by the NRC, but are not operating. The American Centrifuge Plant in Piketown, Ohio broke ground in 2007, but stopped construction in 2009. The Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility in Bonneville County, Idaho was licensed in 2011, but construction is on hold.[162]
Previously (2008), demonstration activities were underway in Oak Ridge, Tennessee for a future centrifugal enrichment plant. The new plant would have been called the American Centrifuge Plant, at an estimated cost of US$2.3 billion.[163]
As of September 30, 2015, the DOE is ending its contract with the American Centrifuge Project and has stopped funding the project.[164]
Reprocessing
Nuclear reprocessing has been politically controversial because of the potential to contribute to nuclear proliferation, the potential vulnerability to nuclear terrorism, the political challenges of repository siting, and because of its high cost compared to the once-through fuel cycle.[165] The Obama administration has disallowed reprocessing of nuclear waste, citing nuclear proliferation concerns.[166] Critics of reprocessing worry that the recycled materials will be used for weapons. However, it is unlikely that reprocessed plutonium would be used for nuclear weapons, because it is not weapons-grade.[167] Nonetheless, it is possible that terrorists could steal these materials, because the reprocessed plutonium is less radiotoxic than spent fuel and therefore much easier to steal. Nuclear power plants may not even notice if plutonium was stolen. It is difficult for plants to measure within even tens of kilograms, because making measurements at that accuracy is very time-consuming; consequently, it is likely that smaller amounts of plutonium could be stolen without detection.[168] Additionally, reprocessing is more expensive when compared with spent fuel storage. One study by the Boston Consulting Group estimated that reprocessing is six percent more expensive than spent fuel storage while another study by the Kennedy School of Government stated that reprocessing is 100 percent more expensive.[169]
Waste disposal
Recently, as plants continue to age, many on-site spent fuel pools have come near capacity, prompting creation of dry cask storage facilities as well. Several lawsuits between utilities and the government have transpired over the cost of these facilities, because by law the government is required to foot the bill for actions that go beyond the spent fuel pool.
There are some 65,000 tons of nuclear waste now in temporary storage throughout the U.S.[170] Since 1987, Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, had been the proposed site for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, but the project was shelved in 2009 following years of controversy and legal wrangling.[170][171] An alternative plan has not been proffered.[172] In June 2018, the Trump administration and some members of Congress again began proposing using Yucca Mountain, with Nevada Senators raising opposition.[173]
At places like Maine Yankee, Connecticut Yankee and Rancho Seco, reactors no longer operate, but the spent fuel remains in small concrete-and-steel silos that require maintenance and monitoring by a guard force. Sometimes the presence of nuclear waste prevents re-use of the sites by industry.[174]
Without a long-term solution to store nuclear waste, a nuclear renaissance in the U.S. remains unlikely. Nine states have "explicit moratoria on new nuclear power until a storage solution emerges".[175][176]
Some nuclear power advocates argue that the United States should develop factories and reactors that will recycle some spent fuel. But the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future said in 2012 that "no existing technology was adequate for that purpose, given cost considerations and the risk of nuclear proliferation".[176]
There is an "international consensus on the advisability of storing nuclear waste in deep underground repositories",[177] but no country in the world has yet opened such a site.[177][88][178][179][180][181] The Obama administration has disallowed reprocessing of nuclear waste, citing nuclear proliferation concerns.[166]
Horizontal drillhole disposal describes proposals to drill over one kilometer vertically, and two kilometers horizontally in the earth's crust, for the purpose of disposing of high-level waste forms such as spent nuclear fuel, Caesium-137, or Strontium-90. After the emplacement and the retrievability period, drillholes would be backfilled and sealed. A series of tests of the technology were carried out in November 2018 and then again publicly in January 2019 by a U.S. based private company.[182] The test demonstrated the emplacement of a test-canister in a horizontal drillhole and retrieval of the same canister. There was no actual high-level waste used in this test.[183][184]
Water use in nuclear power production
A 2011 NREL study of water use in electricity generation concluded that the median nuclear plant with cooling towers consumed 672 gallons per megawatt-hour (gal/MWh), a usage similar to that of coal plants, but more than other generating technologies, except hydroelectricity (median reservoir evaporation loss of 4,491 gal/MWh) and concentrating solar power (786 gal/MWh for power tower designs, and 865 for trough). Nuclear plants with once-through cooling systems consume only 269 gal/MWh, but require withdrawal of 44,350 gal/MWh. This makes nuclear plants with once-through cooling susceptible to drought.[186]
Once-through cooling systems, while once common, have come under attack for the possibility of damage to the environment. Wildlife can become trapped inside the cooling systems and killed, and the increased water temperature of the returning water can impact local ecosystems. US EPA regulations favors recirculating systems, even forcing some older power plants to replace existing once-through cooling systems with new recirculating systems.
A 2008 study by the Associated Press found that of the 104 nuclear reactors in the U.S., "... 24 are in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought. All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants’ turbines,"[187] much like all Rankine cycle power plants. During the 2008 southeast drought, reactor output was reduced to lower operating power or forced to shut down for safety.[187]
The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is located in a desert and purchases reclaimed wastewater for cooling.[188]
Plant decommissioning
.png.webp){kind=spacer}
_(43765244195).png.webp){kind=spacer}
The price of energy inputs and the environmental costs of every nuclear power plant continue long after the facility has finished generating its last useful electricity. Both nuclear reactors and uranium enrichment facilities must be decommissioned, returning the facility and its parts to a safe enough level to be entrusted for other uses. After a cooling-off period that may last as long as a century, reactors must be dismantled and cut into small pieces to be packed in containers for final disposal. The process is very expensive, time-consuming, dangerous for workers, hazardous to the natural environment, and presents new opportunities for human error, accidents or sabotage.[189]
The total energy required for decommissioning can be as much as 50% more than the energy needed for the original construction. In most cases, the decommissioning process costs between US$300 million to US$5.6 billion. Decommissioning at nuclear sites which have experienced a serious accident are the most expensive and time-consuming. In the U.S. there are 13 reactors that have permanently shut down and are in some phase of decommissioning, but none of them have completed the process.[189]
New methods for decommissioning have been developed in order to minimize the usual high decommissioning costs. One of these methods is in situ decommissioning (ISD), which was implemented at the U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Site in South Carolina for the closures of the P and R Reactors. With this tactic, the cost of decommissioning both reactors was $73 million. In comparison, the decommissioning of each reactor using traditional methods would have been an estimated $250 million. This results in a 71% decrease in cost by using ISD.[190]
The number of nuclear power reactors are shrinking as they near the end of their life. It is expected that by 2025 many of the reactors will have been shut down due to their age. Because the costs associated with the constructions of nuclear reactors are also continuously increasing, this is expected to be problematic for the provision of energy in the country.[191] When reactors are shut down, stakeholders in the energy sector have often not replaced them with renewable energy resources but rather with coal or natural gas. This is because unlike renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, coal and natural gas can be used to generate electricity on a 24-hour basis.[192]
Organizations
Fuel vendors
The following companies have active Nuclear fuel fabrication facilities in the United States.[193] These are all light water fuel fabrication facilities because only LWRs are operating in the US. The US currently has no MOX fuel fabrication facilities, though Duke Energy has expressed intent of building one of a relatively small capacity.[194]
- Framatome (formerly Areva) runs fabrication facilities in Lynchburg, Virginia and Richland, Washington. It also has a Generation III+ plant design, EPR (formerly the Evolutionary Power Reactor), which it plans to market in the US.[195]
- Westinghouse operates a fuel fabrication facility in Columbia, South Carolina,[196] which processes 1,600 metric tons Uranium (MTU) per year. It previously operated a nuclear fuel plant in Hematite, Missouri but has since closed it down.
- GE pioneered the BWR technology that has become widely used throughout the world. It formed the Global Nuclear Fuel joint venture in 1999 with Hitachi and Toshiba and later restructured into GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy. It operates the fuel fabrication facility in Wilmington, North Carolina, with a capacity of 1,200 MTU per year.
- KazAtomProm and the US company Centrus Energy have a partnership on competitive supplies of Kazakhstan's uranium to the US market.[197]
Industry and academic
The American Nuclear Society (ANS) scientific and educational organization has both academic and industry members. The organization publishes a large amount of literature on nuclear technology in several journals. The ANS also has some offshoot organizations such as North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN).
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is an industry group whose activities include lobbying, experience sharing between companies and plants, and provides data on the industry to a number of outfits.
Anti-nuclear power groups
.jpg.webp){kind=spacer}
Some sixty anti-nuclear power groups are operating, or have operated, in the United States. These include: Abalone Alliance, Clamshell Alliance, Greenpeace USA, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Musicians United for Safe Energy, Nuclear Control Institute, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Public Citizen Energy Program, Shad Alliance, and the Sierra Club.
In 1992, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that "his agency had been pushed in the right direction on safety issues because of the pleas and protests of nuclear watchdog groups".[198]
Debate
There has been considerable public and scientific debate about the use of nuclear power in the United States, mainly from the 1960s to the late 1980s, but also since about 2001 when talk of a nuclear renaissance began. There has been debate about issues such as nuclear accidents, radioactive waste disposal, nuclear proliferation, nuclear economics, and nuclear terrorism.[31]
Some scientists and engineers have expressed reservations about nuclear power, including Barry Commoner, S. David Freeman, John Gofman, Arnold Gundersen, Mark Z. Jacobson, Amory Lovins, Arjun Makhijani, Gregory Minor, and Joseph Romm. Mark Z. Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, has said: "If our nation wants to reduce global warming, air pollution and energy instability, we should invest only in the best energy options. Nuclear energy isn't one of them".[199] Arnold Gundersen, chief engineer of Fairewinds Associates and a former nuclear power industry executive, has questioned the safety of the Westinghouse AP1000, a proposed third-generation nuclear reactor.[200] John Gofman, a nuclear chemist and doctor, raised concerns about exposure to low-level radiation in the 1960s and argued against commercial nuclear power in the U.S.[201] In “Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly,” Amory Lovins, a physicist with the Rocky Mountain Institute, argued that expanded nuclear power "does not represent a cost-effective solution to global warming and that investors would shun it were it not for generous government subsidies lubricated by intensive lobbying efforts".[202]
Patrick Moore (an early Greenpeace member and former president of Greenpeace Canada) spoke out against nuclear power in 1976,[203] but today he supports it, along with renewable energy sources.[204][205][206] In Australian newspaper The Age, he writes "Greenpeace is wrong — we must consider nuclear power".[207] He argues that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels or greenhouse gas emissions requires increased use of nuclear energy.[204] Phil Radford, Executive Director of Greenpeace US responded that nuclear energy is too risky, takes too long to build to address climate change, and by showing that the can U.S. shift to nearly 100% renewable energy while phasing out nuclear power by 2050.[208][209]
Environmentalist Stewart Brand wrote the book Whole Earth Discipline, which examines how nuclear power and some other technologies can be used as tools to address global warming.[210] Bernard Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh, calculates that nuclear power is many times safer than other forms of power generation.[211]
President Obama early on included nuclear power as part of his “all of the above” energy strategy.[212] In a speech to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in 2010, he demonstrated his commitment to nuclear power by announcing his approval of an $8 billion loan guarantee to pave the way for construction of the first new US nuclear power plant in nearly 30 years.[213][214] Then in 2012, his first post-Fukishima state-of-the-union address, Barack Obama said that America needs “an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy,” yet pointedly omitted any mention of nuclear power.[215] But in February 2014, Energy secretary Ernest Moniz announced $6.5 billion in federal loan guarantees to enable construction of two new nuclear reactors, the first in the US since 1996.[216]
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists in March 2013 over one-third of U.S. nuclear power plants suffered safety-related incidents over the past three years, and nuclear regulators and plant operators need to improve inspections to prevent such events.[217]
Pandora's Promise is a 2013 documentary film, directed by Robert Stone. It presents an argument that nuclear energy, typically feared by environmentalists, is in fact the only feasible way of meeting humanity's growing need for energy while also addressing the serious problem of climate change. The movie features several notable individuals (some of whom were once vehemently opposed to nuclear power, but who now speak in support of it), including: Stewart Brand, Gwyneth Cravens, Mark Lynas, Richard Rhodes and Michael Shellenberger.[218] Anti-nuclear advocate Helen Caldicott appears briefly.[219]
As of 2014, the U.S. nuclear industry has begun a new lobbying effort, hiring three former senators — Evan Bayh, a Democrat; Judd Gregg, a Republican; and Spencer Abraham, a Republican — as well as William M. Daley, a former staffer to President Obama. The initiative is called Nuclear Matters, and it has begun a newspaper advertising campaign.[220]
Founder of The Energy Impact Center, a research institute analyzing solutions towards net negative carbon by 2040, Bret Kuegelmass believes that “even if we achieved net-zero new emissions globally, we’d continue to add extra heat at the same rate we are adding it today,” explaining that we need to remove the already existent carbon dioxide in our atmosphere in order to reverse climate change, not just stop the generation of new emissions.[221] Research efforts conducted by the Energy Impact Center have concluded that nuclear energy is the only energy source that’s capable of becoming net-negative and effectively solving global warming.[222]
Public opinion
The Gallup organization, which has periodically polled US opinion on nuclear power since 1994, found in March 2016 that, for the first time, a majority (54%) opposed nuclear power, versus 44% in favor. In polls from 2004 through 2015, a majority had supported nuclear power. support peaked at 62% in 2010, and has been in decline since.[223]
According to a CBS News poll, what had been growing acceptance of nuclear power in the United States was eroded sharply following the 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, with support for building nuclear power plants in the U.S. dropping slightly lower than it was immediately after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.[224] Only 43 percent of those polled after the Fukushima nuclear emergency said they would approve building new power plants in the United States.[224] A Washington Post-ABC poll conducted in April 2011 found that 64 percent of Americans opposed the construction of new nuclear reactors.[225] A survey sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute, conducted in September 2011, found that "62 percent of respondents said they favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States, with 35 percent opposed".[226]
According to a 2012 Pew Research Center poll, 44 percent of Americans favored and 49 percent opposed the promotion of increased use of nuclear power.[227]
A January 2014 Rasmussen poll found likely US voters split nearly evenly on whether to build more nuclear power plants, 39 percent in favor, versus 37 percent opposed, with an error margin of 3 percent.[228]
Knowledge and familiarity to nuclear power are generally associated with higher support for the technology. A study shows that those who feel more educated about nuclear power also have a more positive opinion towards it; in addition, people who live near nuclear power plants also tend to be largely more in support of nuclear power than the general public.[229]
Decreasing public support is seen as one of the causes for the premature closure of many plants in the United States.[230]
Economics
The low price of natural gas in the US since 2008 has spurred construction of gas-fired power plants as an alternative to nuclear plants. In August 2011, the head of America's largest nuclear utility said that this was not the time to build new nuclear plants, not because of political opposition or the threat of cost overruns, but because of the low price of natural gas. John Rowe, head of Exelon, said “Shale [gas] is good for the country, bad for new nuclear development".[215]
In 2013, four older reactors were permanently closed: San Onofre 2 and 3 in California, Crystal River 3 in Florida, and Kewaunee in Wisconsin.[11][12] The state of Vermont tried to shut Vermont Yankee, in Vermont, but the plant was closed by the parent corporation for economic reasons in December 2014. New York State is seeking to close Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, in Buchanan, 30 miles from New York City, despite this reactor being the primary contributor to Vermont's green energy fund.[12][232]
The additional cancellation of five large reactor upgrades (Prairie Island, 1 reactor, LaSalle, 2 reactors, and Limerick, 2 reactors), four by the largest nuclear company in the U.S., suggest that the nuclear industry faces "a broad range of operational and economic problems".[233]
In July 2013, economist Mark Cooper named some nuclear power plants that face particularly intense challenges to their continued operation.[233] Cooper said that the lesson for policy makers and economists is clear: "nuclear reactors are simply not competitive".[233]
In December 2010, The Economist reported that the demand for nuclear power was softening in America.[100] In recent years, utilities have shown an interest in about 30 new reactors, but the number with any serious prospect of being built as of the end of 2010 was about a dozen, as some companies had withdrawn their applications for licenses to build.[99][234] Exelon has withdrawn its application for a license for a twin-unit nuclear plant in Victoria County, Texas, citing lower electricity demand projections. The decision has left the country's largest nuclear operator without a direct role in what the nuclear industry hopes is a nuclear renaissance.[235] Ground has been broken on two new nuclear plants with a total of four reactors. The Obama administration was seeking the expansion of a loan guarantee program but as of December 2010 had been unable to commit all the loan guarantee money already approved by Congress. Since talk a few years ago of a “nuclear renaissance”, gas prices have fallen and old reactors are getting license extensions. The only reactor to finish construction after 1996 was at Watts Bar, Tennessee, is an old unit, begun in 1973, whose construction was suspended in 1988, and was resumed in 2007.[236] It became operational in October 2016. Of the 100 reactors operating in the U.S., ground was broken on all of them in 1974 or earlier.[99][100]
Experts see continuing challenges that will make it very difficult for the nuclear power industry to expand beyond a small handful of reactor projects that "government agencies decide to subsidize by forcing taxpayers to assume the risk for the reactors and mandating that ratepayers pay for construction in advance".[67]
In August 2012, Exelon stated that economic and market conditions, especially low natural gas prices, made the "construction of new merchant nuclear power plants in competitive markets uneconomical now and for the foreseeable future".[237] In early 2013 UBS noted that some smaller reactors operating in deregulated markets may become uneconomic to operate and maintain, due to competition from generators using low priced natural gas, and may be retired early.[238] The 556 MWe Kewaunee Power Station is being closed 20 years before license expiry for these economic reasons.[232][239][240] In February 2014 the Financial Times identified Pilgrim, Indian Point, Clinton and Quad Cities power stations as potentially at risk of premature closure for economic reasons.[241]
.png.webp){kind=spacer}
As of 2017, the U.S. shale gas boom has lowered electricity generation costs placing severe pressure on the economics of operating older existing nuclear power plants.[242] Analysis by Bloomberg shows that over half of U.S. nuclear plants are running at a loss.[243] The Nuclear Energy Institute has estimated that 15 to 20 reactors are at risk of early closure for economic reasons.[244] Nuclear operators in Illinois and New York have obtained financial support from regulators, and operators in Connecticut, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania are seeking similar support.[242] Some non-nuclear power generating companies have filed unfair competition lawsuits against these subsidies, and have raised the issue with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.[243]
See also
- Nuclear energy policy of the United States
- Energy policy of the United States
- List of articles associated with nuclear issues in California
- List of nuclear reactors
- List of largest power stations in the United States
- List of the largest nuclear power stations in the United States
- Nuclear energy policy
- Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States
- List of nuclear whistleblowers
- United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act
- United States-Japan Joint Nuclear Energy Action Plan
References
- "U.S. nuclear industry - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)". www.eia.gov. Retrieved April 24, 2020.
- "Electricity in the U.S. - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)". www.eia.gov. Retrieved April 25, 2020.
- "Carbon Dioxide Emissions Avoided".
- Cho, Adrian (May 20, 2020). "U.S. Department of Energy rushes to build advanced new nuclear reactors". Science. Retrieved October 20, 2020.
Commercial nuclear reactors supply 20% of the United States’s electrical power and 50% of its carbon-free energy.
- "PRIS – Country Details". International Atomic Energy Agency. Retrieved October 21, 2016.
- "Nuclear Energy Overview". EIA. Retrieved April 29, 2015.
- "International energy statistics – Nuclear Electricity Net Generation by Country". US Energy Information Administration. Retrieved April 18, 2015.
- DiChristopher, Tom (March 21, 2019). "The US is losing the nuclear energy export race to China and Russia. Here's the Trump team's plan to turn the tide". CNBC. Retrieved April 25, 2020.
- "Preparing for licensing beyond 60 years". www.world-nuclear-news.org. February 24, 2014. Archived from the original on January 4, 2016. Retrieved July 6, 2016.
- "Nuclear Regulatory Commission resumes license renewals for nuclear power plants". EIA. October 29, 2014. Retrieved April 28, 2015.
- Mark Cooper (June 18, 2013). "Nuclear aging: Not so graceful". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
- Matthew Wald (June 14, 2013). "Nuclear Plants, Old and Uncompetitive, Are Closing Earlier Than Expected". The New York Times.
- US Energy Information Administration, "Lower power prices and high repair costs drive nuclear retirements", 2 July 2013.
- "Two Half-Finished Nuclear Reactors Scrapped as Costs Balloon". Bloomberg.com. July 31, 2017. Retrieved September 26, 2020.
- "Eighteenth Semi-annual Vogtle Construction Monitoring Report" (PDF). www.georgiapower.com. February 2018. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
- Blau, Max (October 20, 2016). "First new US nuclear reactor in 20 years goes live". CNN. Retrieved October 20, 2016.
- Benjamin K. Sovacool. The costs of failure: A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907–2007, Energy Policy 36 (2008), p. 1808.
- John Byrne and Steven M. Hoffman (1996). Governing the Atom: The Politics of Risk, Transaction Publishers, p. 136.
- "Reactors Designed by Argonne National Laboratory". Argonne National Laboratory. Retrieved May 15, 2012.
- ANL-175 – Nuclear Reactors Built, Being Built, or Planned in the United States as of June 30, 1970 TID-8200 (22nd Rev.), USAEC Division of Technical Information, (1970) (PDF), 1970, doi:10.2172/4115425 (2 MB)
- "Fast Reactor Technology: the EBR-I Reactor". Argonne National Laboratory. Retrieved May 15, 2012.
- Proving the Principle: Chapter 6 Archived 2011-05-15 at the Wayback Machine
- "Uranium Quick Facts". Depleted UF6 Management Information Network.
- "INL".
- Parker, Larry and Holt, Mark (March 9, 2007). Nuclear power: Outlook for new U.S. reactors CRS Report for Congress.
- Michael D. Mehta (2005). Risky business: nuclear power and public protest in Canada Lexington Books, p. 35.
- Garb, Paula (1999). "Review of Critical Masses". Journal of Political Ecology. 6.
- Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, pp. 380.
- Wolfgang Rudig (1990). Anti-nuclear Movements: A World Survey of Opposition to Nuclear Energy, Longman, p. 61.
- Walker, J. Samuel (2004). Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective (Berkeley: University of California Press), p. 10.
- Brian Martin. Opposing nuclear power: past and present, Social Alternatives, Vol. 26, No. 2, Second Quarter 2007, pp. 43–47.
- Giugni, Marco (2004). Social Protest and Policy Change: Ecology, Antinuclear, and Peace Movements p. 44.
- Herman, Robin (September 24, 1979). "Nearly 200,000 Rally to Protest Nuclear Energy". New York Times. p. B1.
- Williams, Estha. Nuke Fight Nears Decisive Moment Archived November 29, 2014, at the Wayback Machine Valley Advocate, August 28, 2008.
- Charles D. Ferguson & Frank A. Settle (2012). "The Future of Nuclear Power in the United States" (PDF). Federation of American Scientists.
- Cambridge University Press Nuclear Implosions: The Rise and Fall of the Washington Public Power Supply System Retrieved 2008-11-11
- "Review of 'Nuclear implosions; the rise and fall of the Washington Public Power Supply System'". SciTech Book News. June 2008. Retrieved November 11, 2008.
- Pope, Daniel (July 31, 2008). "A Northwest distaste for nuclear power". Seattle Times. Retrieved November 11, 2008.
- Nuclear Power: Outlook for New U.S. Reactors p. 3.
- Al Gore (2009). Our Choice, Bloomsbury, p. 157.
- Amory Lovins, Imran Sheikh, Alex Markevich (2009). Nuclear Power:Climate Fix or Folly Archived September 27, 2011, at the Wayback Machine p. 10.
- "Nuclear Follies", a February 11, 1985 cover story in Forbes magazine.
- Federal Government of the United States, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (August 11, 2009). "Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident". Retrieved July 17, 2010.
-
World Nuclear Association (March 2001). "Three Mile Island Accident Factsheet". Retrieved July 17, 2010.
Updated version of January 2010
- International Atomic Energy Agency. "INES – International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale". Retrieved July 17, 2010.)
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission (September 16, 2004). "Davis-Besse preliminary accident sequence precursor analysis" (PDF). Retrieved June 14, 2006. and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (September 20, 2004). "NRC issues preliminary risk analysis of the combined safety issues at Davis-Besse". Archived from the original on October 3, 2006. Retrieved June 14, 2006.
- John Byrne and Steven M. Hoffman (1996). Governing the Atom: The Politics of Risk, Transaction Publishers, p. 155.
- John Byrne and Steven M. Hoffman (1996). Governing the Atom: The Politics of Risk, Transaction Publishers, p. 157.
- "Shutting Down Rancho Seco". Time. June 19, 1989.
- Nuclear Energy Review, US Energy Information Administration, 2012.
- "Fact Sheet on Reactor License Renewal". Fact Sheets. NRC. February 16, 2011. Retrieved March 23, 2011.
- Half of U.S. nuclear reactors over 30 years old by Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com, published March 15, 2011
- "Status of License Renewal Applications and Industry Activities". Operating Reactors. NRC. March 22, 2011. Retrieved March 23, 2011.
- "Nuclear power plant operations since 1957", US Energy Information Administration, 2007. File:Fig 9-2 Nuclear Power Plant Operations.jpg
- Findings: Energy Lessons by John Tierney, New York Times, published October 6, 2008.
- quoted by US EPA Commissioner Kennedy, in [Decisions of the United States Environmental Protection Agency], v,1 p.490.
- US Energy Information Administration, Table 9.1, Annual Review, 27 September 2012.
- US Energy Information Administration, Net electrical generation 1949–2011, September 2012.
- US Energy Information Administration, "Operating and maintenance costs for nuclear power plants in the United States", World Energy Outlook 1994, p.41.
- US Energy Information Administration, Table 9.2, Nuclear power plant operations 1957–2011, 27 Sept. 2012.
- "How a nuclear stalemate left radioactive waste stranded on a California beach". The Verge. August 28, 2018.
- "Fukushima Fallout: 45 Groups and Individuals Petition NRC to Suspend All Nuclear Reactor Licensing and Conduct a "Credible" Three Mile Island-Style Review". Nuclear Power News Today. April 14, 2011.
- Carly Nairn (April 14, 2011). "Anti nuclear movement gears up". San Francisco Bay Guardian.
- JulieAnn McKellogg (March 18, 2011). "US Nuclear Renaissance Further Crippled by Japan Crisis". Voice of America.
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2011). "The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle" (PDF). p. xv.
- Mark Cooper (July 2011). "The implications of Fukushima: The US perspective". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. p. 9.
- "Experts: Even higher costs and more headaches for nuclear power in 2012". MarketWatch. December 28, 2011.
- HSBC (2011). Climate investment update: Japan's nuclear crisis and the case for clean energy. HSBC Global Research, March 18.
- Testimony before the Committee on Science, Space and Technology
- "Toshiba withdraws ABWR certification application". World Nuclear News. July 1, 2016. Retrieved July 5, 2016.
- Yee, Vivian (July 20, 2016). "Nuclear Subsidies Are Key Part of New York's Clean-Energy Plan". The New York Times.
- "NYSDPS-DMM: Matter Master".
- "FirstEnergy gives notice to deactivate four units". World Nuclear News. March 29, 2018. Retrieved March 30, 2018.
- "Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2019" (PDF). February 2019.
- Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis - Version 13.0 (PDF) (Report). Lazard. November 2019. Retrieved April 22, 2020.
- "Exelon announces early shutdown of four Illinois reactors". World Nuclear News. August 27, 2020. Retrieved August 27, 2020.
- Fuse, Taro (March 24, 2017). "Toshiba decides on Westinghouse bankruptcy, sees $9 billion in charges: sources". Reuters. Retrieved March 25, 2017.
- Tom Hals, Makiko Yamazaki, Tim Kelly (March 30, 2017). "Huge nuclear cost overruns push Toshiba's Westinghouse into bankruptcy". Reuters. Retrieved March 31, 2017.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- Christopher Martin, Chris Cooper (March 31, 2017). "How an American tech icon bet on nuclear power — and lost". Bloomberg. Retrieved April 2, 2017.
- Diane Cardwell, Jonathan Soble (March 29, 2017). "Westinghouse Files for Bankruptcy, in Blow to Nuclear Power". New York Times. Retrieved April 4, 2017.
- Sonja Schmid, "Nuclear Renaissance in the Age of Global Warming," Bridges, v.12, Stanford University, Dec. 2006.
- Louisiana goes nuclear , cnn.com, August 26, 2008
- Joint venture will build nuclear reactors in Newport News, The Virginian-Pilot, October 23, 2008
- "NRC: Combined License Applications for New Reactors".
- Chris Gadomski (February 20, 2009). "Will nuclear rebound?". Nuclear Engineering International. Archived from the original on January 3, 2010. Retrieved March 11, 2009.
- "NRC: Location of Projected New Nuclear Power Reactors".
- "News – The Advocate — Baton Rouge, Louisiana".
- Suzanne Goldenberg. "US nuclear industry tries to hijack Obama's climate change bill". the Guardian.
- Amory Lovins (March–April 2012). "A Farewell to Fossil Fuels". Foreign Affairs.
- Exelon delays plan for Texas nuclear plant
- A key energy industry nervously awaits its 'rebirth'
- Reuters Editorial (January 29, 2008). "MidAmerican drops Idaho nuclear project due to cost". Reuters.
- "The Daily Sentinel." Commission, City support NuStart Archived 2007-09-28 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved December 1, 2006
- "US energy bill favors new build reactors, new technology". Nuclear Engineering International. August 12, 2005. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved December 26, 2007.
- Michael Grunwald & Juliet Eilperin (July 30, 2005). "Energy Bill Raises Fears About Pollution, Fraud Critics Point to Perks for Industry". Washington Post. Retrieved December 26, 2007.
- McCaffrey, Shannon (February 16, 2010). "Georgia Power still increasing rates". Associated Press. Retrieved February 16, 2010.
- A Comeback for Nuclear Power? New York Times, February 16, 2010.
- Matthew L. Wald. Vermont Senate Votes to Close Nuclear Plant The New York Times, February 24, 2010.
- Matthew L. Wald (December 7, 2010). "Nuclear 'Renaissance' Is Short on Largess". The New York Times.
- "Team France in disarray: Unhappy attempts to revive a national industry". The Economist. December 2, 2010.
- Matthew L. Wald. (September 23, 2010). "Aid Sought for Nuclear Plants". Green. The New York Times.
- Ron Pernick and Clint Wilder (2012). "Clean Tech Nation" (PDF). p. 5.
- US Energy Information Administration, Total Energy.
- "TVA board approves construction of nuclear plant". The Tennessean. August 18, 2011. Retrieved August 18, 2011.
- "TVA cuts contractors at Alabama Bellefonte nuclear site". Reuters. March 16, 2012.
- "404 – – Southern Company". Archived from the original on September 28, 2010.
- "404 – – Southern Company". Archived from the original on December 10, 2011.
- Kristi E. Swartz (February 16, 2012). "Groups sue to stop Vogtle expansion project". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
- Tracy, Ryan (March 30, 2012). "U.S. Approves Nuclear Plants in South Carolina". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved September 23, 2012.
- "NRC Approves Vogtle Reactor Construction". Nuclear Street. Retrieved February 9, 2012.
- Ayesha Rascoe (February 9, 2012). "U.S. approves first new nuclear plant in a generation". Reuters.
- Brad Plumer (July 31, 2017). "U.S. Nuclear Comeback Stalls as Two Reactors Are Abandoned". The New York Times.
- "NRC suspends final licensing decisions". 2012.
- "EIA predicts up to 4% fall in nuclear share of US generation by 2040". World Nuclear News. April 16, 2015. Retrieved April 20, 2015.
- US Energy Information Administration, U.S. nuclear capacity and generation expected to decline as existing generators retire, 12 May 2017.
- Stoddard, Patsy (January 24, 2017). "Update on the Nuclear Power Plant for Green River". Emery County Progress. Archived from the original on February 11, 2017.
- O'Donoghue, Amy Joi (October 27, 2011). "NRC holds hearing on Utah's proposed nuclear power plant". Deseret Morning News. Salt Lake City, Utah. Archived from the original on February 11, 2017. Retrieved February 7, 2017.
- "President calls for action to preserve US nuclear plants - World Nuclear News". www.world-nuclear-news.org. Retrieved November 6, 2019.
- "After 48 Years, Democrats Endorse Nuclear Energy In Platform". Forbes. August 23, 2020.
- "PRIS - Reactor Details". www.iaea.org. Retrieved May 11, 2018.
- Kern, Penelope (October 30, 2007). "Nuclear Plant in Works for Utah; Coal Developer Joins Effort". Energy Prospects West.
- "PRIS - Reactor Details". www.iaea.org. Retrieved May 11, 2018.
- "PRIS - Reactor Details". www.iaea.org. Retrieved May 11, 2018.
- "BRUNSWICK-1". IAEA. Retrieved April 14, 2013.
- "BRUNSWICK-2". IAEA. Retrieved April 14, 2013.
- "Entergy's Indian Point Unit 2 to Shut Down Permanently". Indian Point Energy Center. April 29, 2020. Retrieved April 30, 2020.
- "MAINE YANKEE". IAEA. Retrieved April 14, 2013.
- AP, John Madill/The Herald-Palladium via; File. "Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan to shut down in 2022". Energy News Network. Retrieved December 7, 2019.
- "VERMONT YANKEE". IAEA. April 13, 2013. Retrieved April 14, 2013.
- StarTribune.com, WILSON RING Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant ends operations after 42 years of producing electricity Archived 29 December 2014 at the Wayback Machine, 29 December 2014
- Walton, Rod (August 9, 2018). "Vogtle Cost Upgrade Causes Rethinking of $25B Nuclear Plant's Future". Power Engineering.
- "Turkey Point licensed for 80 years of operation". World Nuclear News. December 6, 2019. Retrieved December 9, 2019.
- "Minutes to Meltdown: Three Mile Island". National Geographic. Archived from the original on April 29, 2011.
- Perrow, C. (1982), ‘The President’s Commission and the Normal Accident’, in Sils, D., Wolf, C. and Shelanski, V. (Eds), Accident at Three Mile Island: The Human Dimensions, Westview, Boulder, pp.173–184.
- World Nuclear Association. Three Mile Island Accident January 2010.
- Sovacool, Benjamin K. (2008). "The costs of failure: A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907–2007". Energy Policy. 36 (5): 1807. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.040.
- Mangano, Joseph (2004). "Three Mile Island: Health study meltdown". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 60 (5): 31–35. Bibcode:2004BuAtS..60e..30M. doi:10.2968/060005010.
- Mark Hertsgaard (1983). Nuclear Inc. The Men and Money Behind Nuclear Energy, Pantheon Books, New York, p. 95 & 97.
- Nathan Hultman & Jonathan Koomey (May 1, 2013). "Three Mile Island: The driver of US nuclear power's decline?". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 69 (3): 63–70. Bibcode:2013BuAtS..69c..63H. doi:10.1177/0096340213485949. S2CID 145756891.
- NRC (September 2009). "Fact Sheet on Improvements Resulting From Davis-Besse Incident". NRC Fact Sheet.
- United States Government Accountability Office (2006). "Report to Congress" (PDF). p. 1.
- "Nuclear Industry's Safety, Operating Performance Remained Top-Notch in '08, WANO Indicators Show". Reuters. March 27, 2009.
- Fergus, Charles. "Are today's nuclear power plants safe?". Research Penn State. Archived from the original on August 27, 2007.
- Mufson, Steven & Yang, Jia Lynn (March 24, 2011). "A quarter of U.S. nuclear plants not reporting equipment defects, report finds". Washington Post.
- "Around the Nation".
- "Aircraftcrashbreach – Nuclear Energy Institute".
- Mark Cooper (2012). "Nuclear safety and affordable reactors: Can we have both?" (PDF). Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
- NBC News June 21, 2011 Radioactive tritium leaks found at 48 US nuke sites
- Wesoff, Eric (June 16, 2011). "Black & Veatch's 2011 Electric Utility Survey". Greentechmedia. Retrieved October 11, 2011.
- Clayton, Mark (March 30, 2011). "Fukushima warning: US has 'utterly failed' to address risk of spent fuel". CS Monitor.
- Northey, Hannah (March 28, 2011). "Japanese Nuclear Reactors, U.S. Safety to Take Center Stage on Capitol Hill This Week". New York Times.
- Michael D. Lemonick (August 24, 2011). "What the east coast earthquake means for US nuclear plants". The Guardian.
- Sovacool, Benjamin K. (August 2010). "A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia". Journal of Contemporary Asia. 40 (3): 393–400. doi:10.1080/00472331003798350. S2CID 154882872.
- Sovacool, Benjamin K. (2009). The Accidental Century – Prominent Energy Accidents in the Last 100 Years. Archived from the original on August 21, 2012.
- Global uranium supply ensured for long term, new report shows, International Atomic Energy Agency, 26 July 2012.
- Uranium 2014, OECD World Nuclear Agency and International Atomic Energy Agency, 2015.
- Uranium 2003, OECD World Nuclear Agency and International Atomic Energy Agency, 2004.
- US Energy Information Administration, “The U.S. relies on foreign uranium, enrichment services to fuel its nuclear power plants,” Today in Energy, 28 Aug. 2013.
- Union of Concerned Scientists. "How Nuclear Power Works". Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved April 29, 2014.
- English, Marianne. "HowStuffWorks "How Uranium Mining Works"". HowStuffWorks. Retrieved April 29, 2014.
- URENCO, URENCO USA begins enrichment of nuclear fuel Archived 2014-03-09 at the Wayback Machine, 25 June 2010.
- US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Uranium enrichment, 21 Feb. 2014.
- "Uranium Enrichment — The American Centrifuge". USEC Inc. 2008. Archived from the original on July 4, 2008. Retrieved May 15, 2008.
- "DOE Pulls Plug on Centrifuge". The Chillicothe Gazette. 2015. Retrieved September 11, 2015.
- Harold Feiveson; et al. (2011). "Managing nuclear spent fuel: Policy lessons from a 10-country study". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
- Editorial, Nature 460, 152 (July 8, 2009). "Adieu to nuclear recycling". Nature. 460 (7252): 152. Bibcode:2009Natur.460R.152.. doi:10.1038/460152b. PMID 19587715.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- Rossin, A. David. "U.S. Policy on Spent Fuel Reprocessing: The Issues". PBS.
- Union of Concerned Scientists. "Reprocessing and Nuclear Terrorism". Union of Concerned Scientists.
- Orszag, Peter R. (November 14, 2007). "Costs of Reprocessing Versus Directly Disposing of Spent Nuclear Fuel" (PDF). Presentation.
- Eben Harrell (August 15, 2011). "Bury Our Nuclear Waste — Before It Buries Us". TIME.
- "Nuclear industry to fight Yucca Mountain bill".
- "Japanese Crisis Highlights U.S. Atomic Waste Safety Problem". Global Security Newswire. March 24, 2011.
- Collins, Michael (June 3, 2018). "Congress works to revive long-delayed plan to store nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain". USA Today.
- Matthew Wald (January 24, 2012). "Wanted: Parking Space for Nuclear Waste". New York Times.
- David Biello (July 29, 2011). "Presidential Commission Seeks Volunteers to Store U.S. Nuclear Waste". Scientific American.
- Matthew Wald (January 26, 2012). "Revamped Search Urged for a Nuclear Waste Site". New York Times.
- Al Gore (2009). Our Choice, Bloomsbury, pp. 165–166.
- Motevalli, Golnar (January 22, 2008). "Nuclear power rebirth revives waste debate". Reuters. Retrieved May 15, 2008.
- "A Nuclear Power Renaissance?". Scientific American. April 28, 2008. Archived from the original on May 25, 2017. Retrieved May 15, 2008.
- von Hippel, Frank N. (April 2008). "Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth". Scientific American. Retrieved May 15, 2008.
- Kanter, James. "Is the Nuclear Renaissance Fizzling?".
- Conca, James (January 31, 2019). "Can We Drill a Hole Deep Enough for Our Nuclear Waste?". Forbes.
- "Disposal of High-Level Nuclear Waste in Deep Horizontal Drillholes". MDPI. May 29, 2019.
- "The State of the Science and Technology in Deep Borehole Disposal of Nuclear Waste". MDPI. February 14, 2020.
- "EIA – Electricity Data".
- Jordan Macknick, Robin Newmark, Garvin Heath, and KC Hallett, A Review of Operational Water Consumption and Withdrawal Factors for Electricity Generating Technologies, US National Renewable Energy Laboratory, March 2011.
- "Drought could close nuclear power plants – Weather – NBC News". NBC News.
- "Attention, Cities: You Can Sell Your Excess Wastewater to Nuclear Power Plants". Fast Company. April 1, 2010.
- Benjamin K. Sovacool (2011). Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy, World Scientific, p. 118-119.
- https://www.dndkm.org/DOEKMDocuments/BestPractices/26-EFCOG%20Best%20Practice%20-%20SRS%20P%20and%20R%20Reactor%20Basins%20ISD%20Final.pdf
- Carmona, Mónica; Feria, Julia; Golpe, Antonio A.; Iglesias, Jesus (September 2017). "Energy consumption in the US reconsidered. Evidence across sources and economic sectors". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 77: 1055–1068. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.227. hdl:11441/88671.
- Langwith, J. (2009). Renewable energy. Detroit: Greenhaven Press.
- "World Nuclear Fuel Facilities". WISE Uranium Project. May 14, 2008. Retrieved May 15, 2008.
- "Duke Power Granted License Amendment by Nuclear Regulatory Commission To Use MOX Fuel". Duke Energy. March 3, 2005. Archived from the original on December 6, 2007. Retrieved May 15, 2008.
- "EPR: Generation III+ Performance" (PDF). September 6, 2007. Retrieved May 15, 2008.
- "Uranium Ash at Westinghouse Nuclear Fuel Plant Draws Fine". Environment News Service. 2004.
- "Kazakh, USA join forces in nuclear fuel supply". World Nuclear News.
- Matthew L. Wald. Nuclear Agency's Chief Praises Watchdog Groups, The New York Times, June 23, 1992.
- Mark Z. Jacobson. Nuclear power is too risky CNN, February 22, 2010.
- Robynne Boyd. Safety Concerns Delay Approval of the First U.S. Nuclear Reactor in Decades Scientific American, July 29, 2010.
- Obituary: John W. Gofman, 88, Scientist and Advocate for Nuclear Safety Dies New York Times, August 26, 2007.
- Nancy Folbre (March 28, 2011). "Renewing Support for Renewables". New York Times.
- Patrick Moore, Assault on Future Generations, Greenpeace report, p47-49, 1976 – pdf Archived October 20, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
- Moore, Patrick (April 16, 2006). "Going Nuclear". Washington Post.
- Washington Post Article, Sunday, April 16, 2006 – Going Nuclear
- The Independent, Nuclear energy? Yes please!
- The Age Greenpeace is wrong — we must consider nuclear power, article by Patrick Moore, December 10, 2007
- Energy Revolution, Greenpeace report – pdf Archived October 7, 2013, at the Wayback Machine
- "Radford, New Greenpeace Boss on Climate Change, Coal, and Nuclear Power". The Wall Street Journal. April 14, 2009.
- Stewart Brand (2009). Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto. Viking. ISBN 978-0-670-02121-5.
- Bernard L Cohen. "The Nuclear Energy Option".
- White House website, Advancing American energy Archived 2012-04-25 at the Wayback Machine, accessed 11 October 2014.
- Henry J. Pulizzi and Christine Buurma, “Obama unveils loan guarantee for nuclear plant”, Wall Street Journal, 16 Feb. 2010.
- Rick Jesse, Nuclear energy and an energy-independent future, White House website, 16 Feb. 2010.
- "America's nuclear industry struggles to get off the floor". The Economist. February 18, 2012.
- Ned Resnikoff, US to help build first new nuclear reactors in decades, MSNBC, 19 Feb. 2014.
- Nuclear plant inspections need to improve: report Reuters Mar 7, 2013
- Kilday, Gregg (May 29, 2013). "Paul Allen Lends Support to Pro-Nuclear Doc 'Pandora's Promise'". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved September 25, 2013.
- O’Sullivan, Michael (June 13, 2013). "'Pandora's Promise' movie review". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 25, 2013.
- Matthew Wald (April 27, 2014). "Nuclear Industry Gains Carbon-Focused Allies in Push to Save Reactors". New York Times.
- "Nuclear Energy & Climate Change (Bret Kugelmass, Climate Leadership Summit 2019) - Nuclear Power - YouTube". www.youtube.com. Retrieved December 7, 2020.
- Kugelmass, Bret. "Want to stop climate change? Embrace the nuclear option". USA TODAY. Retrieved December 7, 2020.
- "First time majority oppose nuclear energy", Gallup, 16 March 2016.
- Michael Cooper (March 22, 2011). "Nuclear Power Loses Support in New Poll". The New York Times.
- M. V. Ramana (July 2011). "Nuclear power and the public". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 67 (4): 44. Bibcode:2011BuAtS..67d..43R. doi:10.1177/0096340211413358. S2CID 144321178.
- "Americans' Support for Nuclear Energy Holds at Majority Level 6 Months After Japan Accident". PR Newswire. October 3, 2011.
- The Pew Research Center For The People and The Press (March 19, 2012). "As Gas Prices Pinch, Support for Oil and Gas Production Grows" (PDF).
- Rasmussen Reports, Energy Update: 39% Support Building More U.S. Nuclear Power Plants, 37% Oppose, 9 Jan. 2014.
- Bisconti, Ann Stouffer (January 2018). "Changing public attitudes toward nuclear energy". Progress in Nuclear Energy. 102: 103–113. doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.07.002.
- Gattie, David K.; Darnell, Joshua L.; Massey, Joshua N.K. (December 2018). "The role of U.S. nuclear power in the 21st century". The Electricity Journal. 31 (10): 1–5. doi:10.1016/j.tej.2018.11.008.
- John Quiggin (November 8, 2013). "Reviving nuclear power debates is a distraction. We need to use less energy". The Guardian.
- "Vermont Green Energy Fund". Archived from the original on February 26, 2014. Retrieved February 21, 2014.
- Mark Cooper (July 18, 2013). "Renaissance in reverse" (PDF). Vermont Law School. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 14, 2016.
- "Nuclear power in America: Constellation's cancellation". The Economist. October 16, 2010. p. 61.
- Matthew L. Wald (August 31, 2010). A Nuclear Giant Moves Into Wind The New York Times.
- United States of America: Nuclear Power Reactors – By Status
- "Exelon scraps Texas reactor project". Nuclear Engineering International. August 29, 2012. Archived from the original on January 29, 2013. Retrieved September 14, 2012.
- "Some merchant nuclear plants could face early retirement: UBS". Platts. January 9, 2013. Retrieved January 10, 2013.
- "Dominion To Close, Decommission Kewaunee Power Station". Dominion. October 22, 2012. Retrieved February 28, 2013.
- Caroline Peachey (January 1, 2013). "Why are North American plants dying?". Nuclear Engineering International. Retrieved February 28, 2013.
- Ed Crooks (February 19, 2014). "Uneconomic US nuclear plants at risk of being shut down". Financial Times. Retrieved February 25, 2014.
- Levy, Marc (April 11, 2017). "Nuclear plant owners expand search for rescue to more states". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on April 10, 2017. Retrieved April 11, 2017.
- Polson, Jim (July 14, 2017). "Why Nuclear Power, Once Cash Cow, Now Has Tin Cup". Bloomberg. Retrieved July 15, 2017.
- Kidd, Steve (April 7, 2017). "The future of the nuclear sector – is innovation the answer?". Nuclear Engineering International. Retrieved April 12, 2017.
External links
- GA Mansoori, N Enayati, LB Agyarko (2016), Energy: Sources, Utilization, Legislation, Sustainability, Illinois as Model State, World Sci. Pub. Co., ISBN 978-981-4704-00-7
- Comment: A US nuclear future? Nature, Vol. 467, 23 September 2010, pp. 391–393.
- World Nuclear Association
- US Nuclear Power Plants – General U.S. Nuclear Info
- World Nuclear Association: Nuclear energy in the world
- The Nuclear Energy Institute: The policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry
- Nuclear power plant operators in the United States (SourceWatch).
- How many people live near a nuclear power plant in the United States? Data Visualization