America’s Nuclear Comeback: Pros, Cons, and Prescriptions
Stuart Carson
In March 2011, a tsunami overwhelmed the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant’s seawall, flooding its facilities and cutting electrical power.[1] Without power for cooling, the fuel rods in reactors 1,2, and 3 overheated and melted down, releasing radiation.[2] Nuclear regulators eventually elevated the severity level of the disaster to a 7, the highest level on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s scale.[3]
By the end of 2011, the facility at Fukushima was declared stable.[4] However, its effects on the world’s civil nuclear energy industry took longer to contain. Months after the disaster, the German Bundestag voted to phase out the country’s nuclear power entirely.[5] Italy, Spain, Belgium, and Switzerland took similar action.[6] In the United States, government action was not as dramatic, but post-Fukushima regulations were estimated to cause the industry billions, and the emergence of cheap natural gas and renewables left little room for civil nuclear energy to develop.[7]
Today, however, a nuclear renaissance of sorts is taking place. At COP28 in 2023, 24 countries including France, South Korea, the UK, the U.S., and even Japan, signed on to a goal of tripling global nuclear energy capacity by 2050.[8] In 2024, 14 of the world’s biggest banks and financial institutions pledged to increase their support for nuclear energy.[9] A month later, nuclear energy stocks hit record highs due to surging demand from AI.[10] Even the Three Mile Island nuclear plant, the site of the worst nuclear accident in American history, is being revived by a deal struck between Constellation Energy and Microsoft at the end of 2024.[11]
This blog will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of civil nuclear energy, the challenges its development faces in the U.S., and how the U.S. ought to approach the industry.
What is Nuclear Energy?
Nuclear power generation involves the splitting of an enriched uranium atom within a nuclear reactor in a process called nuclear fission.[12] Splitting the atom creates a chain reaction that creates heat, which warms the reactor’s cooling agent, typically water, to produce steam.[13] That steam is then channeled into spin turbines that activate an electric generator to create electricity.[14]
In 2023, nuclear energy generated about 20% of U.S. utility-scale electricity.[15] This proportion of America’s energy mix represents a prolonged decline in the U.S.’s generation of nuclear energy.[16] The American nuclear energy sector boomed during the decades following World War II, but eventually faced a series of headwinds that stymied its development, including environmental activism, meltdowns at nuclear power plants, and stiff competition from alternatives such as natural gas and renewable energy.[17]
Advantages, Disadvantages, and Challenges
Despite its decades of decline, nuclear energy offers the U.S. unique advantages. First, even though it is not a renewable energy source (its use requires uranium, a finite resource), it is clean.[18] In other words, its use produces nearly zero greenhouse gas emissions. It also does not produce air pollutants often associated with the burning of fossil fuels.[19] Nuclear energy also provides baseload power (it sends electricity onto the grid at a consistent, predictable rate) just as other sources of energy do, including coal plants, gas plants, and renewables with energy storage.[20]
Another advantage nuclear energy enjoys is that, unlike renewables, support for the sector is bipartisan. During the Biden Administration, a bill aiming to reduce the regulatory burden and licensing fees for the nuclear industry, the ADVANCE Act, was approved by an overwhelming congressional margin—393-13 in the House of Representatives and 88-2 in the Senate. In his first few months back in office, President Trump has been hostile to clean energy, halting permitting for offshore wind and all renewables on federal land.[21] Despite his apparent hostility, however, the President still nominated an Energy Secretary (Chris Wright) and Interior Secretary (Doug Burgum) who are both vocal supporters of nuclear energy.[22]
Nuclear energy is not without its disadvantages, and the issue of nuclear waste may well be its biggest. In the civil context, nuclear waste consists of spent fuel from nuclear power plants.[23] It is dangerously radioactive for thousands of years, and the U.S. has not yet successfully implemented a plan for permanent storage.[24] Instead, the country’s nuclear waste is stored at temporary sites throughout the country.[25] Generally, conditions at these sites are such that they will not pose a risk for decades, but they will not last for the millennia required to effectively isolate the waste from us and our environment.[26]
The development of nuclear power plants is also more costly and time intensive than other energy projects, especially when compared to alternative clean energies. The capital cost of large-scale solar and wind is at least eight times lower than nuclear.[27] The time to get new wind and solar into the electricity grid is at least half the time for a new nuclear power plant.[28] Nuclear power is also two to six times more costly per megawatt-hour than wind and solar.[29]
What Should the United States Do about Civil Nuclear Energy?
Though nuclear energy presents unique challenges and risks, it can still play a crucial role in helping the U.S. combat climate change and meet huge increases in electricity demand prompted by the rise of artificial intelligence. To that end, the U.S. ought to 1) act decisively on a national permanent nuclear waste depository, 2) continue to improve efficiencies at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and 3) follow through on Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) obligations.
National Nuclear Waste Depository
Rapidly outlining and implementing a plan for a national permanent nuclear waste depository should be a top government priority. Congress already approved such a plan as far back as 2002, when the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository site was approved for development.[30] Federal funding for the project was rescinded within a decade.[31] Without a permanent national waste depository, American nuclear energy will continue to be dogged by concerns regarding the threat its waste poses to the environment and human health.
Arriving at a solution for waste disposal is also likely to reduce the cost burdens on projects. In the absence of a national repository, power plants often store spent fuel onsite in dry casks.[32] Construction, maintenance, and security for these storage facilities can cost utilities up to millions of dollars annually.[33] Some of these costs may eventually be reimbursed by the federal government, but reimbursement generally requires utilities to sue the federal government for their reimbursement and not all costs are reimbursable.[34]
Reform & Efficiency at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
The U.S. must also continue to reform the NRC. The NRC is an independent federal agency that licenses new nuclear power plants, approves their designs, and monitors their construction operation.[35] To get approval for new nuclear projects, applicants must endure a lengthy licensing process involving safety and environmental reviews that are frequently duplicative and unnecessarily extend for years.[36] Licensing also involves lengthy public hearing processes which, though important, can delay projects for years through minor procedural challenges.[37] To make matters worse, developers not only need to pay to retain legal counsel to guide them through this process—they must also pay the NRC at an hourly rate.[38] Since the average applicant for a combined construction and operation license accrues nearly 90,000 hours of billed review time, these hourly NRC fees typically amount to tens of millions of dollars.[39]
The above challenges all contribute to nuclear energy projects’ costly and time-intensive licensing woes. The ADVANCE Act was a step in the right direction, reducing NRC licensing fees, accelerating regulatory review of reactor applications for existing nuclear sites, and setting the stage for more efficient advanced reactor licensing.[40] However, costs and delays associated with the current regulatory regime persist.
In order to reduce these burdens, Congress ought to continue to work towards streamlining NRC licensing. Every NRC application undergoes environmental review, even for designs and sites that are similar to ones that were previously approved.[41] This bottleneck could be ameliorated by requiring the NRC to create a generic template for the required Environmental Impact Statement (thereby reducing its preparation time and costs) for previously used designs and sites. Such a template could be subject to an accelerated review process. Congress could also consider modifying the Atomic Energy Act to prevent redundant challenges to the review process, especially in cases where a site or design has previously been approved.
Complete IRA-Funded Projects
Finally, the U.S. should not renege on its IRA financial obligations. In 2022, the IRA allocated approximately $369 billion, primarily in the form of tax credits, over ten years towards the American clean energy sector.[42] In less than two years, the law spurred an estimated $493 billion in private investment in clean technology and infrastructure, a 71% increase from the two years preceding the IRA’s passage. Some investments, such as those in domestic solar manufacturing, increased 10-fold.[43]
Despite the aforementioned results and billions in loan guarantees to complete the construction of nuclear plants during his first term, President Trump has pledged to repeal IRA tax credits for lower-carbon energy sources, which could potentially include funding for existing reactors and new advanced reactors.[44] In the absence of federal support, utilities and utility commissions are unlikely to proceed with new reactor construction during President Trump’s second term.[45] Private investment would be heavily disincentivized as well. This would not only come at the expense of the industry, but ultimately at the expense of the country’s energy transition, environment, and energy consumers.
[1]Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident, Nuclear Energy Agency, https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_27411/fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-accident (last visited Mar. 1, 2025).
[2] Fukushima accident, Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Fukushima-accident (last visited Mar. 1, 2025).
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] The nuclear phase-out in Germany, Fed. Off. for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Mgmt., https://www.base.bund.de/en/nuclear-safety/nuclear-phase-out/nuclear-phase-out_content.html (last visited Mar. 1, 2025).
[6] Henri Paillere & Jeffrey Donovan, Nuclear Power 10 Years After Fukushima: The Long Road Back, International Atomic Energy Agency (Mar. 11, 2021), https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/nuclear-power-10-years-after-fukushima-the-long-road-back; Jeremy Hsu, Nuclear Power Looks to Regain Its Footing 10 Years after Fukushima, Scientific American (Mar. 9, 2021), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-looks-to-regain-its-footing-10- years-after-fukushima/.
[7] Id.; William Freebairn, Nuclear safety upgrades post-Fukushima cost $47 billion, S&P Global(Mar. 29, 2016), https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/blog/electric-power/032916 -nuclear-safety-upgrades-post-fukushima-cost-47-billion.
[8] At COP28, Countries Launch Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050, Recognizing the Key Role of Nuclear Energy in Reaching Net Zero, US Dep’t of Energy (Dec. 1, 2023), https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-declaration-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050-recognizing-key; Nicole Pollack, Is Nuclear Energy Having a Renaissance?, Heatmap (Dec. 1, 2024), https://heatmap.news/guides/nuclear-energy-power.
[9] Lee Harris & Malcolm Moore, World’s biggest banks pledge support for nuclear power, Fin. Times(Sep. 23, 2024), https://www.ft.com/content/96aa8d1a-bbf1-4b35-8680-d1fef36ef067.
[10] Jamie Smyth & Amanda Chu, Nuclear energy stocks hit record highs on surging demand from AI, Fin. Times(Oct. 20, 2024), https://www.ft.com/content/33eeadbe-edf4-40b5-b973-e76c570d0681.
[11] Jamie Smyth, Restart of Three Mile Island tests US appetite for nuclear revival, Fin. Times (Nov. 17, 2024), https://www.ft.com/content/b90f6e21-bb8d-4606-9e5e-c4acb56b86ce.
[12] Andrea Galindo, What is Nuclear Energy? The Science of Nuclear Power, Int’l Atomic Energy Agency (Nov. 15, 2022), https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-is-nuclear-energy-the- science-of-nuclear-power#:~:text=Nuclear%20energy%20is%20a%20form,fusion%20%E2%80%93%20when%20nuclei%20fuse%20together.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?, US Energy Info. Admin., https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 (last visited Mar. 1, 2025).
[16] Pollack, supra note 8.
[17] Id.
[18] What is nuclear energy (and why is it considered a clean energy)?, Nat’l Grid, https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/what-nuclear-energy-and-why-it-considered-clean-energy (last visited Mar. 1, 2025).
[19] Id.
[20] Pollack, supra note 8.
[21] Jael Holzman, Trump Orders End to All Wind Energy Permits, Heatmap (Jan. 20, 2025), https://heatmap.news/politics/wind-executive-order-trump; Jael Holzman, Trump’s Wind Order Could Hit ‘More Than Half’ of New Projects, Heatmap (Jan. 23, 2025), https://heatmap.news/plus/the-fight/ spotlight/trump-executive-order-wind.
[22] Maeve Allsup & Lisa Martine Jenkins, ‘Baseload’ is Trump 2.0’s energy watch word,Latitude Media(Jan. 20, 2025), https://www.latitudemedia.com/news/baseload-is-trump-2-0s-energy-watch-word/.
[23] Mitch Jacoby, As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions, Chem. & Eng’g News (Mar. 30, 2020), https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12.
[24] Id.; Allison MacFarlane & Rodney C. Ewing, Nuclear Waste Is Piling Up. Does the U.S. Have a Plan?, Sci. Am. (Mar. 6, 2023), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-is- piling-up-does-the-u-s-have-a-plan/.
[25] Jeff McMahon, New Map Shows Expanse Of U.S. Nuclear Waste Sites, Forbes (May 31, 2019), https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-shows-expanse-of-u-s-nuclear-waste-sites/.
[26] MacFarlane & Ewing, supra note 24.
[27] Ben Jealous, The Fiction of a Nuclear Silver Bullet, Sierra Club (June 15, 2023), https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/fiction-nuclear-silver-bullet.
[28] Id.
[29] Id.
[30] Approval of Yucca Mountain Site, Pub. L. No. 107–200, 116 Stat. 735.
[31] Rsch. Div. Legis. Counsel Bureau,Facy Sheet: Timeline for the Yucca Mountain Project, (2018).
[32] Lance N. Larson, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IF11201, Nuclear Waste Storage Sites in the United States(2020).
[33] Will Wade, Americans are paying more than ever to store deadly nuclear waste, L.A. Times (June 14, 2019), https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-radioactive-nuclear-waste-storage-20190614-story.html#:~:text=Storing%20spent%20fuel%20at%20an,to%20the%20Nuclear%20Energy%20Institute.
[34] U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-21-603, Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel 18-19 (2021), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-603.pdf; See Duke Energy Progress, Inc. v. United States, 135 Fed. Cl. 279 (2017) (setting forth three factors to determine what costs are reimbursable).
[35] U.S. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n, Fact Sheet on Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Process (Oct. 2020), https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/licensing-process-fs.html.
[36] Matt Bowen et al., Columbia Univ. Center on Glob. Energy Pol’y, Reforming Nuclear Reactor Permitting and Env’t Reviews: Roundtable Rep.(2023), https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/publications/reforming-nuclear-reactor-permitting-and-environmental-reviews-roundtable-report/.
[37] Matt Bowen et al., Columbia Univ. Center on Glob. Energy Pol’y, Reforming Nuclear Licensing at the Nuclear Regul. Comm’n: Enhancing Accountability and Efficiency 19 (2023), https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/NRCLicensing-CGEP_Report_112123.pdf.
[38] U.S. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n, General Licensing Fee Questions and Answers (Aug. 2021), https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/licensing/general-fee-questions.pdf.
[39] U.S. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n, New Reactors Business Line Fee Estimates (Jan. 2023), https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2301/ML23018A174.pdf.
[40] Brian Martucci, The bipartisan ADVANCE Act is boosting US nuclear. What does the industry want next?, Utility Dive (Sep. 24, 2024), https://www.utilitydive.com/news/bipartisan-law-boosting-nuclear-energy-advanced-reactors/727804/.
[41] U.S. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n, Env’t Review (Mar. 5, 2024), https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/new-app/general-guidance/env-review.html.
[42] U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Treasury Releases New Reports on the Inflation Reduction Act’s Impact on Clean Energy Investment and Jobs (Dec. 15, 2023), https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1128.
[43] Trevor Houser et al., Rhodium Grp., Tallying the Two-Year Impact of the Inflation Reduction Act (2024), https://rhg.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Clean-Investment-Monitor_Tallying-the-Two-Year-Impact-of-the-Inflation-Reduction-Act-1.pdf.
[44] Eric Wesoff, Nuclear power had a strong year in 2024, but uncertainty looms for 2025, Canary Media(Dec. 30, 2024), https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/nuclear-power-had-a-strong-year- in-2024-but-uncertainty-looms-for-2025.
[45] Id.