Nuclear Energy Gains Bipartisan Traction, but Safety Concerns Linger
The twin cooling towers of the Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant sit alongside the Tennessee River north of Chattanooga, Tennessee. Photo courtesy of Photorush.
The United States is at a crossroads regarding nuclear power. Despite decades of stagnation, there are signs of renewed interest in the industry, as recently evinced by the House’s passage of the bipartisan Atomic Energy Advancement Act (H.R. 6544). If passed by the Senate and signed by the president, this legislative accomplishment will streamline the deployment of fusion energy technologies, which are crucial to maintaining the United States’s position as a global leader in the commercial energy market. Following the House’s passage by a 365 to 36 vote margin on February 28, 2024, Congressman Jeff Duncan (R-SC), who sponsored the bill, said, “I’ve worked tirelessly in Congress to preserve America’s nuclear fleet and increase nuclear power generation through meaningful reforms—the Atomic Energy Advancement Act does just that.”
Certainly, H.R. 6544 is a significant step in the nation’s mission to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while supplying a reliable, baseload source of electricity that can complement intermittent renewable sources such as wind and solar. However, policymakers should approach any expansion of nuclear energy with the utmost caution and foresight, as several safety risks, radioactive waste management, and high costs cannot be ignored. To develop a comprehensive regulatory system capable of clearing these safety and economic hurdles, the U.S. government must look toward the nuclear energy accomplishments of its foreign partners.
Before turning to the strides in nuclear energy abroad, it’s imperative to fully grasp the domestic picture of American nuclear energy. Public apprehension remains a significant barrier to its expansion. A 2023 Gallup poll found that only 55% of Americans “strongly” or “somewhat” favor the use of nuclear energy, while 44% “strongly” or “somewhat” oppose it. This split may reflect entrenched fears of nuclear catastrophe following high-profile disasters like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Nevertheless, this fear could also result from a more complex interplay of factors shaping public opinion. Notably, Gallup’s analysis suggests that nuclear energy support correlates with gas prices, such that Americans are more open to it when oil prices are high and less open when prices are low.
Even though nuclear power, which currently provides about 20% of the U.S.’s electricity, has renewed interest in Congress, the energy source will remain a long way off from playing a significantly larger role in the country’s energy future until long-standing safety issues are addressed—primarily, waste management.
Despite decades of research and debate, the United States does not have a permanent solution for storing nuclear power plant waste. On-site waste storage at nuclear facilities is not a sustainable long-term solution, as it poses significant health and environmental risks. Instead, Congress should designate and fund a national repository for nuclear waste, such as the stalled Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. Public safety could be ensured by transporting nuclear waste via secure rail routes, with constant monitoring and strict oversight. This transport method would allow radioactive materials to be moved safely while also reducing environmental and community risks.
America can learn valuable lessons in proper waste management from other countries with successful nuclear programs. For example, France has implemented a closed fuel cycle approach, recycling spent nuclear fuel to extract usable materials like uranium and plutonium. This approach is aided by the fact that France only permits three types of reactors. This commitment to reactor standardization ensures France can apply consistent regulations, thereby contributing to a more uniform waste stream and helping the country reduce its nuclear waste by 96%. Equally insightful is Finland’s progress on the Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository. In the Nordic country, nuclear waste is being buried deep within a massive cave system located approximately 450 meters below the surface of Olkiluoto Island, located in the country’s southwest region. Finland believes this project is a safe long-term solution for storing nuclear waste because the cave system has very stable bedrock and is rarely prone to earthquakes. Moreover, the depth and natural rock barriers help isolate the waste from the surrounding environment.
In an effort to emulate Finland’s Onkalo project, the U.S. could create a deep geological repository. A suitable location could be identified in more geologically stable areas, such as the Northeast Corridor, Midwest, or South, while avoiding earthquake-prone regions like the West Coast. For long-term waste isolation, these areas might offer stable bedrock formations and natural barriers.
In addition to waste management concerns, high costs associated with building and operating nuclear power plants are an obstacle to their expansion. Reactor construction is a lengthy and expensive process, typically spanning six to eight years and costing $6 to 9 billion per reactor, which discourages many investors and utilities from pursuing nuclear projects. For instance, the cancellation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station expansion project in South Carolina in 2017 highlights the financial risks involved. Due to a series of cost miscalculations and corporate buyouts, South Carolina Electric & Gas and Santee Cooper, a state-owned utility, ultimately canceled the construction of two nuclear reactors, which left Westinghouse, the construction company contracted to build the reactors, bankrupt. This case was controversial in part because the involved corporations were able to transfer much of the financial risk to South Carolina residents. According to the Base Load Review Act of 2007, utility companies in South Carolina may increase electricity rates to finance the construction of nuclear reactors before they are even completed. Approximately 800,000 Dominion Energy customers in South Carolina have about 15 more years to pay for the abandoned project, accounting for 5.6% of their monthly electricity bill.
To incentivize new construction, Congress should entertain providing a range of financial support mechanisms for corporations to develop new reactor designs and modernize existing plants. For example, the U.S. could implement policies similar to the United Kingdom’s Contracts for Difference scheme (CfDs). The regulatory landscape in the U.S. does present a challenge to directly adopting the U.K.’s CfD model. However, the underlying principle of providing financial stability to encourage investment in nuclear energy could potentially be achieved through other mechanisms that are more compatible with existing U.S. regulations. Through CfDs, developers of projects with high upfront costs are directly protected from volatile wholesale prices by being offered a fixed price (called the “strike price”) for the electricity they produce, while consumers are spared increased support costs when electricity prices are high. This approach has successfully attracted investment in the U.K.’s Hinkley Point C nuclear project.
Besides establishing financial support mechanisms for corporations, the U.S. could also establish a public-private partnership model for nuclear projects, similar to South Korea’s plan, where the government takes on a portion of the financial risk, encouraging private investment. The government would share financial risks under this model, possibly through loan guarantees, direct investments, or insurance against delays and cost overruns.
Likewise, investing in research and development is also essential to advance the next generation of nuclear technologies like small modular reactors (SMRs). With the potential to be more affordable, flexible, and safer than traditional large-scale reactors, SMRs are suitable for a variety of settings, including industrial sites and remote communities, and can contribute to the decarbonization of sectors that are difficult to electrify. To develop and deploy SMRs, the U.S. government should take a coordinated, strategic approach similar to that provided by the Canadian SMR Action Plan. The Action Plan builds on the effort of Canada’s SMR Roadmap, which convened “Team Canada”—the federal government, provinces and territories, Indigenous Peoples and communities, power utilities, industry, innovators, laboratories, academia, and civil society—to collaborate on the development of nuclear innovation. Such an approach would involve addressing key challenges and create a supportive ecosystem for SMR technology. In the U.S. context, states with significant heavy industry, remote communities, or those looking to replace aging coal plants are the most likely to benefit from SMR technology. For instance, Alaska could use SMRs to power remote communities, while states like Ohio and Pennsylvania could potentially replace coal plants and support manufacturing.
Despite the positive steps toward promoting advanced nuclear technologies, the Atomic Energy Advancement Act might ultimately fall short if the precautions outlined above are not taken. Thus, the U.S. must not be afraid to look beyond American borders for policy inspiration. To be truly effective, future legislation should incorporate lessons from international examples. Fundamentally, by supporting the development of advanced nuclear technologies, we can position the United States as a leader in the global nuclear industry, creating new opportunities for economic growth and green energy.
We must continue working together to build on the Atomic Energy Advancement Act across party lines to ensure nuclear power’s future sustainability and security. As long as safety is prioritized, a comprehensive waste management strategy is established, costs are reduced, and investments in advanced technologies are made, nuclear power can be a source of reliable, low-carbon energy produced by a safe and responsible industry.
Ryon Roque (SEAS ’27) is a staff writer at the Columbia Political Review. He is a sophomore studying mechanical engineering and political science.