Risks are stacking up against the U.S. nuclear industry
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
The nuclear power plant on Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island, which is scheduled to close on Sept. 30, 2019. Photo: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images
Due to atrophy at home and competition abroad, the U.S. nuclear industry is increasingly at risk of losing power plants, workforce talent and global business.
Why it matters: The civilian and military nuclear sectors depend on one another, and both are strategic assets vital to national security. Nuclear energy also eases the path to decarbonizing the U.S. electric grid.
Context: Prospective employment in the civilian nuclear power sector is a core incentive to academic training and military careers in nuclear energy. This supply chain of expertise is at least as essential as the material inputs.
- U.S. exports of nuclear technology are part of a diplomatic strategy that establishes trade agreements with foreign countries pursuant to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978.
- Nuclear energy constitutes the majority of low-carbon electricity generation in the U.S., at just under 20% of the overall domestic energy mix for electricity.
Where it stands: The U.S. has lost 6 nuclear energy plants since 2013, while 9 more are planned to close in the next decade.
- Nuclear power faces stiff competition from cheaper fuels like natural gas, solar and wind, while its reliability, resilience and zero-carbon footprint go undervalued.
- Meanwhile, foreign state-owned nuclear companies can outcompete U.S. firms. Russia and China are building more than 60% of the world’s new nuclear plants, with significant state support.
What’s happening: Some states are incorporating nuclear energy into their clean energy portfolio standards to prevent plant closures. Congress recently passed 2 bills to encourage advanced nuclear technologies and a third was introduced in March.
Yes, but: Stronger legislation could help the industry by incentivizing more innovation and easing the permitting processes.
- A carbon fee of $15 per ton that increases 5% a year (in real-dollar terms) could support the current fleet and even encourage new plant construction by 2050, according to the Energy Information Agency. A $25 baseline would yield even greater benefits.
- Small modular reactors and “generation IV” technologies promise to reduce waste, shorten construction times and decrease proliferation and safety risks. These innovations could lower costs but would likely require government investment.
The bottom line: If more of America’s nuclear power plants shutter over the coming decade, the U.S. could see further erosion of both its international influence and the industrial-scientific base critical to future innovation.
The authors are with the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center, where Randolph Bell is director, Jennifer T. Gordon is deputy director and Robert F. Ichord Jr. is a senior fellow.
Go deeper: Read the Atlantic Council report on the U.S. nuclear industry's strategic challenges.
