By Steve Goreham
A nuclear energy resurgence is underway, driven by the artificial intelligence revolution and the Trump administration. Nuclear plants that were shut down are being restarted. Dozens of small reactors are being deployed. But nuclear power still faces major cost, startup time, and regulatory obstacles.
The first commercial nuclear plant started operation at Calder Hall in England in 1956. By 1970, reactors were in construction around the world. Many predicted that atomic energy would generate most of the world’s power by 2000. In 1973, President Richard Nixon stated, “It is estimated that nuclear power will provide more than one-quarter of the country’s electrical production by 1985, and over half by the year 2000.”
However, operational problems and environmental opposition would sway public opinion against atomic energy. Reactor failures at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, in Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986, and at Fukushima, Japan in 2011 raised safety concerns. Rising costs from efforts to ensure reactor safety and disposal of nuclear waste limited new plant construction. The nuclear share of world electricity peaked in 1996 at 18%, dropping to about 9% in 2024.
Artificial intelligence (AI) now drives a rising demand for electric power. The high-tech firms, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Meta, and the newcomer OpenAI, are building data centers across the world. Since the start of 2024, the number of US data centers has increased more than 50%.
To help meet the new AI power demand, the Trump administration now pushes for a nuclear resurgence. On May 23, President Trump signed four executive orders aimed at deployment of new reactors, strengthening the nuclear supply chain, and reestablishing US industry leadership. In 2024, nuclear plants generated about 18% of US electricity. The presidential orders called for quadrupling US nuclear capacity to 400 GW by 2050.
The power needed by artificial intelligence is huge. When data center servers that previously supported the internet and grid storage are upgraded to run AI, they require six to ten times more electricity. Meta’s Hyperion data center in northeast Louisiana, when completed, will consume twice as much power as New Orleans.
Artificial intelligence needs 24-hour, 7-day, always-on power, which intermittent wind and solar can’t provide. Companies that have committed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions view nuclear as a zero-emissions source to power AI.
Today, natural gas is the preferred onsite electricity source for new data centers in the US. Over 200 gas-fired power plants are in planning or under construction nationwide, including more than 100 new gas plants in Texas alone.
Tesla is a solar and battery company, but last year the firm installed 35 gas turbines to power its Colossus xAI data center near Memphis, Tennessee. Gas plants can be constructed in as little as two years at a small fraction of the nuclear cost.
Nevertheless, to help meet rising power demand, US nuclear plants are being restarted or completed. Holtec International is restarting the plant in Palisades, Michigan, which was shut down in 2022. Constellation Energy and Microsoft agreed to restart the Three Mile Island #1 reactor in Pennsylvania, (not the unit that suffered the 1979 accident). Google and NextEra Energy plan to restart the Duane Arnold Energy Center in Palo, Iowa, which was shut down in 2020 after wind-storm damage. Last month, Santee Cooper signed a letter of intent with Brookfield Asset Management to complete construction of two reactors in South Carolina after construction was halted in 2017.
In October, the Trump administration signed an agreement with Cameco Corporation, Brookfield Asset Management, and Westinghouse to invest $80 billion in new or restarted large-scale nuclear plants. This government-industry partnership aims to boost the nuclear industry in the US and abroad.
But large nuclear reactors continue to face cost, cycle time, and regulatory obstacles, compared to other sources. The most recently constructed US nuclear plants, Vogtle units 3 and 4 in Georgia, took more than a decade to build and entered service in 2023, more than seven years late. The plants cost over $30 billion, more than $18 billion over budget.
Nuclear plants face stringent regulatory requirements. I recently spoke at a conference of plastic pipe manufacturers. An attendee told me that when he ships pipe to a typical factory, two pages of documentation are required, but that this rises to more than an inch of paperwork for pipe for a nuclear plant.
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) aim to provide the cost and cycle-time reductions needed for nuclear resurgence. Traditionally, reactors were custom designed and built on-site with capacities of about 1,000 megawatts (MW). SMRs are being designed with capacities of 10ꟷ300 MW, small in size, and able to be factory-assembled and transported as a unit to a location for installation.
In addition to targeting cost and build-time breakthroughs, SMRs are being designed for wide application and improved safety. Rather than rely on the grid, tech firms plan to build SMRs on-site to power data centers. Small reactors may soon be used to power commercial ships, military bases, and rural communities. These small plants are designed to shut down automatically in the case of failure and to minimize nuclear waste.
In August, the Department of Energy selected ten companies for fast-track SMR development, with an aggressive goal of having three test reactors up and running by July, 2026. Twenty-four US companies are pursuing the SMR market.
The nuclear resurgence also appears to be underway globally. About 80 companies from 19 countries are working on SMR designs. One SMR is operating in Russia, and one is under construction in China. Russia and South Korea have begun building commercial ships with small reactors.
Trump administration efforts to expand nuclear capacity face another obstacle. The US nuclear fleet of 94 operating reactors was mostly built in the 1970s and 1980s and is rapidly aging. Thirty-one of the reactors are more than 50 years old and another 36 are more than 40 years old. These reactors will need to be refurbished along with new reactor start-ups to expand the US nuclear capacity.
In summary, the push for a nuclear renaissance must overcome two things. One is the need for major cost breakthroughs, so that developers can back their projects with ‘turnkey’ performance to meet quoted costs and completion dates. Second is the need for a reduction in federal regulations. If these can be accomplished, a real free market in commercial nuclear power may be possible where government subsidies are not needed.
——————
Steve Goreham, a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy, is author of as well as author of the bestseller Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure. His previous posts can be found here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The French were able to series build reactors (to a US design) and have a favorable learning curve. I believe much of the problems are due to deliberate interference by anti-nuclear advocates.
Very true, Tom. I am 73 and have come to the understanding that most cost overruns on nuclear power plants are due to litigation, not engineering problems.
The NIMBYs have had their say for too long. That time is over.
That’s part of it. But let’s not give antinukes credit for things they had nothing to do with. One principal problem is that nuclear power plants tend to be first-of-a-kind projects. The two Vogtle reactors were the very first of the Westinghouse AP1000 design.
Moreover, the western industrial world has largely lost the skills of large project management and engineering. Since the completion of the French nuclear fleet in the 1990s and the US and Canadian fleets in the 1980s, there’s been no large scale anything, anywhere.
There is indeed one company and country that builds nuclear power plants to a predictable cost and schedule. And that’s KHNP in South Korea. It has continued building new nuclear power plants under budget and ahead of schedule for the last three decades.
A large part of the reason why nothing large gets done in the West, is due to the environmentalists. They oppose the building of everything. The bigger the project, the more they oppose it.
As to everything nuclear being a one-off, you can also lay a good chunk of the blame on the environmentalists again. It is because of them that regulations are constantly changing, often requiring redesigns, after construction has begun.
I agree but only in part. The picture is complicated by the fact that, given any opportunity, engineers will ‘tinker’ with a supposedly final design. This is to make ‘improvements’. And these all require approval of the regulators. So at least some of this is self-inflicted delay. I can think of at least one nuclear engineering design company which quite literally destroyed itself this way.
True, there is nothing complicated about the Keystone XL pipeline. We are talking technology straight from the 1800s.
When you look at the data nuclear power is the most safe with the least number of deaths attributed to it. When you look at the press nuclear has the greatest fear factor. Nothing wrong with being safe when building but the amount of regulations is stifling. The way to speed it up nuclear implementation is decrease the regulations that are questionable and the time to approve. Time to approve can be corrected now.
Maybe so, if human deaths is only metric one wants to use when evaluating nuclear power plant accidents/disasters. However, there others to consider, such as:
— the number of people that may have accumulated exposure to radiation released into the environment from the explosion/accident to suffer health effects of such (such as cancers) long after the event,
— the number of people forced to evacuate the proximity of the power plant to a “deemed safe” distance, and the financial costs of such (e.g., having to abandon already-paid-off/family homes),
— the number of square miles contaminated by the accidental release of radioactive debris, dust/particulates, and water/liquids in proximity to the site, and the financial costs of any resulting attempts of cleanup or isolation of the contaminated areas over XX number of years,
— the direct economic impact over a large area as the result of forced closure of businesses (including single-home businesses) that were forced to do so by virtue of being located in the radiation-contaminated area, as well as the loss of wages for those inhabitants that were displaced; also possible loss of income from agriculture or animal farms shutdown too because they were in the contaminated zone,
— the lasting mental/psychological impact on all people, particularly young children, that were directly affecting by being near the explosion/accident, having one or both parents or relatives being in that situation, and by resulting after-effects, such a forced separation from dear friends/ playmates.
According to Google’s AI information on the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster :
— “approximately 1,000 on-site emergency and recovery workers received high doses on the first day of the Chernobyl disaster, with about 134 suffering acute radiation sickness and 28 dying within months,
— “another estimated 200,000 cleanup workers from 1986-1987 received doses ranging from 1 to 100 rem (100-1000 mSv)*,
— “about 115,000 people were evacuated from contaminated areas and received doses that, while lower than the on-site workers, were still elevated,
— “about 6.4 million people in contaminated areas of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine were exposed to radiation, with doses varying by region.”
*Note that the normal dose of natural background radiation at Earth’s surface for an average person is approximately 2.4 to 3.1 millisieverts (mSv) per year, though this can vary widely depending on geographical location. So, a minimum radiation dose of 100 mSv is equivalent to receiving about 30 years of average natural, background sea level radiation.
As for the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant disaster, this from https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident published in April 2024:
— “over 100,000 people were evacuated from their homes as a preventative measure.”
— “Official figures show that there have been 2313 disaster-related deaths among evacuees from Fukushima prefecture. Disaster-related deaths are in addition to the about 19,500 that were killed by the earthquake or tsunami.”
Citing Chernobyl as an example of nuclear dangers is a bit much. The Chernobyl design was incompetent (is was a Soviet design where individuals count for nothing), there was no containment for the reactors other than a roof to keep the rain out, and it was incompetently operated. TMI 1 was also errently operated which caused the accident but the consequences were contained and nobody was hurt or endangered. TMI 2 continued operating for many years after the TMI 1 accident.
P.S. Everybody is exposed to natural radiation coming from the rocks and dirt all about you. If you want to get more than most, go to the badlands of South Dakota where natural radiation levels are a lot higher than most anywhere else in the US.
I note with interest that you didn’t address the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster wherein hydrogen-air explosions in reactor Units 1, 3, and 4 caused structural damage which allowed the venting of radioactive material outside of each of their “containments”.
As for everyone “being exposed to natural radiation”, nuclear disasters can and do result in radiation levels much higher than “natural”.
I think that Denis could well have included that data, but you only cited Chernobyl. Fukushima also turned out to be less lethal than feared.
BTW, the radiation released from TMI was roughly the equivalent of a chest X-ray. I’ve had quite a few of those over my 73 yrs, and I’m still here to complain.
Hah! You should have read—more importantly understood—the last three paragraphs of my reply above to mleskovarsocalrrcom before making your post.
There were no radiation-related injuries or fatalities as a result of Fukushima.
There were actually several American casualties( even a totally comprised Baby born 2 years later fathered by one of the marines) , on the USS Reagan.
Wether it was result of the fukushima cloud they went through or the nuclear drive is up to debate.
Either way – nuclear stuff ain’t as dangerous as some claim nor that harmless as others claim..
None attributable to radiation from Fukushima.
Well said. Just like water, electricity, nitrogen – too much, too little . . .
Life is a terminal disease.
It may sound callous, but it is still true. Babies with genetic issues are born all the time. The correct criteria is, was there an increase in the rate and the answer to that is no.
The science has shown, time and again, that small increases in radiation is not harmful, and in fact can even be beneficial.
In rebuttal:
“Japan has acknowledged for the first time that a worker at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, destroyed by an earthquake and tsunami more than seven years ago, died from radiation exposure.”
(source: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1LL0NV/ )
Note that the Reuters article was published September 5, 2018. Maybe you haven’t kept up with the news?
So DON’T put your diesel backup generators underground in a tsunami zone.
I won’t. You?
Contrary to that statement, this from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/24/japan-nuclear-plant-workers-hospital (my bold emphasis added, also this article is referenced in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident ):
“Three cable-layers at Fukushima power plant exposed to high levels of radiation after stepping into contaminated water
“The two more seriously injured men were diagnosed with possible beta ray burns and were due to be taken to a special unit at the National Institute of Radiological Sciences in Chiba, east of Tokyo, Japan’s nuclear safety agency said.
“The injuries are similar to regular burns, but can lead to serious complications over a period of several weeks.”
Three Mile Island didn’t. Interesting that you didn’t quote any numbers for that accident.
Were two real disasters enough?
BTW, please reread my preceding posts . . . I never mentioned TMI as being a nuclear disaster.
In the above thread started by mleskovarsocalrrcom, Denis was the first person to introduce Three Mile Island into discussions with his post of November 21, 2025 1:05 pm . . . and then others joined in.
Reading comprehension 101.
Fukushima is also an old design, and the reactor itself had already been scheduled for decommissioning when the accident occurred.
Yes radiation was released, however the amount released was minor and there was never any need for evacuation.
FYI: (1) you didn’t define “old design”, (2) there were actually six separate operational nuclear actors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, but Units 4, 5 and 6 had been shut down for planned maintenance prior to the earthquake and tsunami, and (3) see the following statement taken from Wikipedia as to the “scheduled decommissioning at the time of the disaster”:
“Unit 1 is a 460 MWe boiling water reactor (BWR-3) constructed in July 1967. It commenced commercial electrical production on March 26, 1971, and was initially scheduled for shutdown in early 2011. In February 2011, Japanese regulators granted an extension of ten years for the continued operation of the reactor.“
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant (my bold emphasis added)
Wikipedia gives no information for scheduled shutdowns of the other five reactors being announced prior to the earthquake and tsunami.
Wow, the government of Japan, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), operator of the Fukushima power plant, the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should certainly have consulted with you before agreeing to enact a 30-kilometer (19 mi) evacuation zone surrounding the plant, which was later reduced to “only” 20-kilometer (12 mi). /sarc
As for your claim that the radiation released from the disaster was “minor”, the above-cited Wikipedia article has this to say:
“In November 2011, the first journalists were allowed to visit the plant. They described a scene of devastation in which three of the reactor buildings were destroyed . . . and radioactive levels were so high that visitors were only allowed to stay for a few hours.“
— again, my bold emphasis added
As of 2024, there is still a small “exclusion zone”, now euphemistically called the “Difficult-to-Return zone”, around the site of the Fukushima power plant disaster wherein only temporary visits are allowed
— ref: https://blog.japanwondertravel.com/fukushima-exclusion-zone-tour-is-it-safe-to-visit-41130
Mark, I believe they were/are Boiling Water Reactor designs, ill Brave search and check if memory still serves..
How many people actually died from the direct cause of the Fukushima plant problem? The numbers often quoted — and the exaggerated claims of radiation‑related deaths from nuclear accidents — are wildly inaccurate. At Fukushima, no one died from acute radiation exposure, and only one worker’s later cancer death has been officially linked to radiation. In contrast, more than 2,000 people died from evacuation stress, and nearly 16,000 died from the tsunami itself. Many lives could have been saved if no one lived, worked, or traveled in tidal‑wave risk areas, though in Japan that is not practical. The same applies to nuclear power: the risks are real, but the blanket solution of “don’t build any plants” is also impractical. In the long run, avoiding nuclear power altogether can cost more lives than it saves.
Unfortunately, there are a significant portion of the population that has been taught to fear the word radiation, and are convinced that any increase in radiation levels, no matter how minuscule, means death.
The reality is that nobody needed to be evacuated from either 3-mile Island or Fukushima.
Hundreds of workers die, and over a hundred thousand are injured every year, from falls in the US alone. We continue to build things. Your citations are weak whimpers with no consideration of benefit. Yes, using energy poses risks, but not having it is far more risky.
What you are actually pointing to is poor planning. Complicating a task with unfounded fears and regulatory obstacles only increases that risk and the cost across the board.
I challenge you to compile a list of the benefits accrued from nuclear power, and of the lives it has enhanced and prolonged. If you are honest, it will dwarf your quaint attempt at dispensing fear. I tell you so.
Thanks for the challenge, but you have obviously mistaken me for being your lapdog.
What, other than intellectual disability or laziness, prevents YOU from compiling such a list?
I, likewise, appreciate telling you so.
Chuckle. You are the one who felt compelled to compile a list, as incomplete and pedestrian as it was.
I have mistaken nothing. I am confident that the benefits are so blatantly obvious and numerous that you are probably quite embarrassed by your previous post, or should be if intellectually robust.
As usual, doomsayers get very defensive and abusive when called to account and challenged with defending a position they know has no foundation.
Mark,
As usual, the less-than-average-intelligence get very defensive and abusive when called to account and challenged with defending a position they know has no foundation.
Chuckle. I thought I was talking to an adult. My mistake.
More than just reducing regulations, reduce the rate at which regulations change.
The cost is entirely due to fear, and the fear was ginned up starting with the BEAR-1 NAS genetics panel in 1956. Radiation was made out to be much more dangerous that it really was in opposition to atmospheric nuclear weapons testing.The linear no-threshold risk hypothesis of cancer risk (LNT) was pushed through in spite of contrary evidence (Russell mouse experiments at Oak Ridge), and became dogma ever since. It is wrong because it does not take mammalian DNA repair into account. 3 Nobel prizes were awarded in 2018 for elucidating the repair mechanism. Let’s see if the site allows links: https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZoyGm5ZNWWcNNy6tF7EoKweLk57VRb5q8KV
This talk was given at Princeton in late May.
My understanding about skin cancer is the risk is greatly increased from sunburns, which implies that the risk is a non-linear function of exposure rate. Since UV is a form of ionizing radiation, that suggests cancer risk from other forms of ionizing radiation is also a non-linear function of exposure.
Au contraire:
“Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is a form of non-ionizing radiation that is emitted by both natural and artificial sources.”
— source: https://www.cdc.gov/radiation-health/data-research/facts-stats/ultraviolet-radiation.html (my bold emphasis added)
Seems like you have been paying attention. Not fair to libs.
Hmmm . . . many people developed a fear of nuclear radiation as a result of photographs and first hand accounts from survivors of the nuclear bombs dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, in August 1945. That would be more than 10 years before 1956.
The book Hiroshima, by American author John Hersey, was published near the end of 1946 and contains vivid, horrific details of radiation burns suffered by the survivors from the city of Hirsoshima, both directly from the bomb detonations but predominately from the radioactive fallout that settled over the city.
“The work was originally published in The New Yorker, which had planned to run it over four issues but instead dedicated the entire edition of August 31, 1946, to a single article. Less than two months later, the article was printed as a book by Alfred A. Knopf. Never out of print, it has sold more than three million copies.”
— source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_(book)
The way to drive down regulatory costs is to use standardized designs that only need minor modifications for individual sites. The SMR approach, using standardized designs that have been reviewed and approved by the NRC, should dramatically reduce regulatory hurdles and legal barriers.
The way to reduce nuclear plant costs is to have an established set of appropriate components that are being produced in sufficient quantities for economies of scale. Having enough systems to produce a supply chain for components should be much more reliable and robust than custom-built large reactors.
Dedicated distribution systems for plants or data centers would be short and would involve few right of way disputes. For municipalities, larger SMRs (100-400MW) for medium size towns could also include opportunities for steam generation for manufacturing, community heating or agriculture. They could be tied into regional electrical distribution systems to provide reciprocal guarantees for power during periods of required maintenance.
The nuclear renaissance is coming, and the competitive free market will drive it. There will be individual winners and losers, but I expect that there will be a group of successful providers that emerge over the next 5-7 years.
Looking at the numbers, SMRs are interesting but plain old GW-scale LWRs are probably most cost effective *if* we can change the NRC’s risk model to make sense (see post above) and reform the “citizen lawsuit” provisions that enable anti-nuclear activist groups to delay construction indefinitely. In the 1960s we could build reactors in 3 years, first shovel to producing electricty. The Vogtle plants took 14 years. In capital construction, time is money.
Time is indeed money. Much is said about the huge cost increases for the new Georgia nuc plants but near nothing is said about the reason for the increases. It wasn’t parts or materials, their cost increased little during the delays. It was labor. Having an expensive project sit idle for weeks, months or even years at a time as regulatory or legal issues are created and addressed costs $billions while waiting for resolutions which themselves likely cost a great deal more. The workers cannot do their work because of the issues usually mean that work must stop but equally cannot be let go because the needed high skill labor force is very hard to reassemble if they are. And we are talking about thousands of people including managers, designers, welders and pipefitters, warehousemen and just about any skill or trade you can think of. The endlessly litigious environment created by the environmental review laws and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules, evaluations, and changes is what controls the cost of such projects and that is what must be fixed.
As to SMRs, I agree that having a number of SMRs at a site seems unlikely to produce less costly electricity than one large reactor. Nuscale planned for about 10 of their water cooled reactors at an Idaho site but couldn’t get cost low enough to satisfy the local utilities. The project failed so far as I know. And the SMR design is also important. Talking about homogeneous SMRs where the fuel is carried with the coolant is, to me, nutty. Impossibly difficult maintenance. Proverbial 10 foot poles will not be near long enough. Molten metal or salt cooled heterogeneous reactors face very difficult materials issues as such coolants are very corrosive to just about anything. Such reactors have faced difficult maintenance and operational issues where they have been tried. Water and gas cooled reactors will work for sure if properly designed but will they be cheaper? We shall see.
The Danish outfit that is building MSRs in Switzerland has a modular setup- each MSR is stacked next to a sibling. As one needs refueling or repair, the module is pulled out and replaced by an identical unit. (Note: MSR is Molten Salt Reactor, while SMR is Small Modular Reactor- an important distinction, but one can be the other.
Yep, you are entirely correct. The French model did exactly that. All but one or two research reactors in France were a US design, standardized throughout the nation, so a technician who worked near Nice could enter a station near Normandy and everything was identical.
The advantages? No screwups like at TMI, and a common design benefited from “economies of scale”.
The disadvantages? Any upgrades had to affect the entire grid, and it could not actually show gradual benefit from newer designs.
My comment was a reply to cotpacker, above.
Before you can have a standardized design, you need standardized regulations.
Today’s regulators demand that the latest technology be included, even if it means a complete redesign. It doesn’t matter if construction has already started.
Highlighted in the above article:
“Nuclear plants that were shut down are being restarted.”
Really? How about some facts to go with that.
The ONLY commercial nuclear power plant in the US that had been shut down and has since actually begun the lengthy process of powering back up is the Palisades nuclear plant in Southwest Michigan. But it is still a long way from putting electrical power into a grid.
This is the situation as of August 25, 2025, according to https://www.michiganpublic.org/environment-climate-change/2025-08-26/palisades-nuclear-power-plant-returns-to-operating-status-three-years-after-shutdown (my bold emphasis added):
“The owners of the Palisades nuclear plant in Southwest Michigan announced a historic milestone today – the plant has officially returned to operational status after being in decommissioning for three years.
“It’s the first time in the U.S. that a decommissioning plant has returned to operations. The plant is still not generating electricity. But the status change means it can now receive new fuel to power the reactors once the final inspections and reassembly of the plant is complete. Holtec International, which owns Palisades, didn’t say how soon that would happen . . .
“The announcement comes after more than a year of work to convince federal regulators that the half-century old plant could be returned to service and operate safely.”
Separately, as for all the latest buzz about the Three Mile Island Unit 1 nuclear reactor being “restarted”, so far there are nothing but plans to do so, plus a recent DOE approval of a $1 billion loan to Constellation Energy in support of the effort . . . the new EIS, required safety inspections/upgrades, permitting, etc., has barely—if at all—begun.
As for the parallel highlighted claim in the above article:
“Dozens of small reactors are being deployed”
. . . absolutely false when talking about the USA, if one excludes the nuclear reactors used to power Navy aircraft carriers and submarines. The closest that statement comes to reality is that Amazon is currently planning to create a SMR-powered commercial nuclear power plant at a future Cascade Advanced Energy Facility outside Richland, Washington, stating “construction on four SMRs is currently expected to start by the end of this decade, with operations targeted to start in the 2030s”. (see https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/sustainability/amazon-smr-nuclear-energy ).
Finally, as for these statements in the article:
“In August, the Department of Energy selected ten companies for fast-track SMR development, with an aggressive goal of having three test reactors up and running by July, 2026. Twenty-four US companies are pursuing the SMR market.”
. . . that’s pretty laughable . . . getting three previously undemonstrated test reactors SAFELY up and running in just 8+ months from now? Also, the fact that China and Russia already have operational SMRs, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_small_modular_reactor_designs .
You should include Germany. They are restarting their reactors as we speak.
The above statement did not specify the USA.
They have just destroyed the last cooling tower to make sure that Germany can never come back as industrial power house.
But maybe you can provide a link to back up your claim.
Or maybe you are referring to scissors post – it was sarcastic.
How so? . . . I clearly stated: “The ONLY commercial nuclear power plant in the US that had been shut down and has since actually begun the lengthy process of powering back up is . . .”
Perhaps it is YOU that should post the details about Germany and all the other nations outside of the US that are “restarting their reactors as we speak.”
Waiting . . .
Never heard of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, did you? Or a host of other Japanese reactors restarted over the past decade?
Timely that you bring up the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear reactor. It most definitely HAS NOT been restarted. In fact just today (21 Nov 2025) an article was published (see https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cev8j9ylr14o ) that states (my bold emphasis added):
“Hideyo Hanazumi, governor of the Niigata region where the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa power plant is located, said he has given the green light for the partial restart.
“The plan to resume operations at the facility, operated by utility company Tepco, still needs approval from the prefecture’s government assembly and Japan’s nuclear regulator before it can proceed.
“If approved, it would be the first time Tepco would be allowed to recommence nuclear reactor operations in Japan since its Fukushima plant went into meltdown following a tsunami.’
The Fukushima nuclear plant disaster happened in 2011 and, yeah, the interval from then until today does include “the past decade”.
So you see, approving the partial restart of a nuclear power station IS NOT THE SAME as actually restarting that nuclear power plant.
But please, similar to my above request, provide the details about the “host of Japanese reactors” that have been “restarted” over the past decade.
Waiting . . .
KK is in the process of restart.And you conveniently ignore the dozens of others restarted since 2011.
Which you are apparently unwilling or unable to list. So be it.
Generally, if you disagree with something, you do better if you provide facts to back their disagreement.
Luckily, people realise that dimwits who believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter have only a tenuous connection to reality, and their demands can be ignored with impunity.
Weren’t the FACTS that I provided in my above post of November 21, 2025 6:32 pm sufficient for you? Apparently not, or more likely, your just ignored or didn’t understand them.
ROTFLMAO.
As to your reference to “adding CO2 to air”, where the eff did that come from???
Now, you were spouting something about “dimwits” . . .
You wrote –
You haven’t provided any facts to contradict the statement that Japanese reactors are being restarted, recommissioned, rebuilt – or whatever you choose to call it.
Playing silly semantic games like –
is not achieving much in supporting your point, is it?
You believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter. That’s just stupid – anybody who thinks so is ignorant and gullible. Resorting to implied obscenity ” . . . where the eff did that come from???” won’t help you wriggle out of looking foolish.
Three incidents over 40 years, two tempests in teapots, and one horrendous one run by Marxists in Russia, wrecked the nuclear industry; meanwhile the Navy has operated submarines and aircraft carriers powered by nuclear without much of a problem over the same period of time. Every technology has issues, from which we learn and improve.
Well, one could not be sure of that without having a Top Secret clearance and need-to-know granted by the US Department of
Defense War. What? . . . you think a serious military nuclear accident is going to be publicized???Surely you don’t believe that the US Government would lie to its citizens, do you? Only dictators and Communist governments tell lies.
I believe aluminium foil has supplanted tinfoil for making hats to prevent the Government or aliens from stealing your brainwaves. Do you have a plentiful supply?
That statement alone tells me all I need to know about your belief system.
More than enough for you. I can mail you some for free since it will only require me to pay the postage for 1 oz or less.
Well there was Russia colluuuusion that came out from government. So it just depends on what to believe.
Well, to put finer points on that statement:
— who you want to believe, as well, and
— truth is independent of any one’s, or group’s, belief(s).
Think of the past belief in a flat Earth . . . think of the Catholic church prosecuting Copernicus for heresy (more than 300 years passed before the church admitted Galileo was right).
Ooops . . . my error in the last paragraph . . . should read, of course, “. . . think of the Catholic church prosecuting Galileo for heresy . . .”
Marxism had nothing to do with Chernobyl. RBMK reactors were designed and intended to operate principally as plutonium production reactors for the Soviet military strategic materials program (bombs). None of these reactors now operate. All were shutdown years ago.
Marxism was why the RBMK design was chosen, it is also the reason why safety features such as a containment vessel were skipped.
The west also needed plutonium, but did not take the route chosen by the Soviets.
I think this issue is made complicated unnecessarily. Let’s face it there are those who don’t want nuclear and will do anything to interfere with their construction and use. The same goes for coal and to a smaller extent gas. Up till now those opposed to these types of generation have been given a free hand and that is a major reason for high costs. If it weren’t for sympathetic judges and government these people wouldn’t matter at all. Stop judicial and government interference and the way forward to safe, clean and affordable energy is easily achievable.
Second it would be a huge mistake to lean too heavily on any single source of power. Coal, gas and nuclear work, move forward with all three and stop wasting our time, money and resources on stuff that doesn’t work like wind, solar and storage no matter how much some people like them. They are free to build their own systems but not with my money.
Third there is a place for both SMRs and large nuclear reactors. Encourage companies to move forward with SMRs I think there will be a huge demand for them in the future. In the meantime we know how to build conventional reactors let’s get busy building them. If I were in charge I would choose a design using the best ideas from all designs. The end product does not have to be the Rolls Royce a Chevy will do. We need to get from point A to point B, the Chevy will do the job cleanly, safely and we can afford it.
As happened at Chernobyl, Russia? As happened at Fukushima, Japan?
Gas which is increasingly being consumed to back up intermittent forms of energy and being a finite resource that is more valuable as feed stock for the petrochemical industry instead of being burnt as a fuel, so the sooner nuclear can reduce the overall emissions and reduce the push to install infrastructure to capture low energy dense intermittent forms of energy the better all finite natural resources can be conserved by aiming to obtain maximum output for the minimum input of those resources. At the moment is seems as is ubers are considered as preferred replacements for MRT systems, figuratively speaking.
However, operational problems and environmental opposition would sway public opinion against atomic energy.
Not exactly true. The rising environmentalist movement and the predominantly left-leaning media were the biggest influencers of public opinion, spreading anti-nuclear propaganda with a combination of exaggerations and disinformation.
Environmental zealots and the unquestioning media that thrives on promoting alarm to sell news used minor accidents like Three Mile Island and major ones like Fukushima Daiichi and Chernobyl to stoke irrational fear. They purposely omitted important contextual information like the fact that nuclear power plant accidents caused far fewer deaths (about 30 or so since 1956) and injuries than all other forms of base load power generation (hydroelectric and fossil fuels), that high-level nuclear waste from spent fuel takes up a very small volume because nuclear fission is extraordinarily efficient compared to all other forms of power generation, that spent fuel can be reprocessed so that about 95% can be used as fuel again which further reduces the amount of high-level waste, that newer generation power plants had already overcome the deficiencies that resulted in the accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima, and that the radiation hazard in the communities surrounding Chernobyl and Fukushima was vastly overstated because of the widespread, politicized adoption of the erroneous linear no-threshold (LNT) model of radiation hazard which is still used in occupational safety policies enforced by government agencies like OSHA in the US and has not been corrected with newer research which invalidates the LNT model. If they had followed the findings of research from MIT a couple decades ago, there was no need to evacuate anyone from the communities surrounding Fukushima Daiichi except within a kilometer of the plant, and only for a few weeks.
As a scientist involved in the nuclear fuel cycle since 1972, I can strongly endorse the need to get rid of the decades of fear mongering that have retarded sensible use of nuclear electricity.
The legacy of large numbers of bureaucrats paid to keep inventing regulation has to stop. For the US and Europe, national reviews of Acts and Regulations is way overdue. (In my Australia, we have a recent ban on nuclear power reactors following a deal by a right-leaning government with greens, a despicable misuse of governance).
The LNT theory (Linear No Threshold relation between dose and harm) has been widely accepted by regulators. It is a byproduct of corruption by the Rockefeller Foundation back in the 1950s. It would not survive an independent evaluation by a neutral expert panel. Rockefeller have intensified their opposition ever since, read some recent annual reports.
The consequences of rare accidents at reactors are fertile ground for inaccurate reporting, with no shortage of morally corrupt reporters willing to invent fearful numbers. Some appear in these WUWT comments.
We have seen how difficult it is to eliminate Trump Derangement Syndrome, TDS. There is a similar Nuclear Derangement Syndrome, NDS. It adds large and needless costs to regulatory demands. Some of those who believe in TDS or NDS will plausibly never be converted because sadly, they appear to have immature minds incapable of change.
The nuclear industry in the US is poised to lead the way to its proper place in the service of needs expressed by the majority of society. Let us hope that it achieves rationality quickly.
My personal interest is to see Australia start construction of nuclear plant before I die. I detest and pity the ignorance of those opposed. Educate yourselves with an open mind.
Geoff S
One of the problems, maybe the main one, with nuclear is the increasing desperation of environmental groups to fight like tigers to block construction of new plants, regardless of their efficacy. These Greens are seeing that wind and solar can’t deliver anywhere near the energy that they dream about, so they’re now determined to undermine nuclear instead without comprehending that if it gets stalled more fossil fuels will be needed to make up any energy shortfalls, particularly since the demand keeps steadily rising. It’s just another example of cutting off one’s nose to spite his face.
Radiation appears to be a fear instilled into the minds of consumers, as a weapon to oppose the nuclear power, whether by specious reasoning or psychosis.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/radiation-linked-to-just-1-percent-of-deaths-among-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-survivors-study-finds-5901128?ea_src=frontpage&ea_med=section-1
“Nuclear plants face stringent regulatory requirements. I recently spoke at a conference of plastic pipe manufacturers. An attendee told me that when he ships pipe to a typical factory, two pages of documentation are required, but that this rises to more than an inch of paperwork for pipe for a nuclear plant.”
The reason behind this is the institutionalized radiation phobia.The Irrationality of Radiological Emergency Policy
The United States Navy’s Naval Nuclear Propulsion program has accumulated 7,600 reactor-years of safe operation.
The Navy’s shipyards workers, nuclear and nonnuclear, provided the data set validating radiation hormesis.
We evolved in a radiation field and there is no reason to believe low level radiation exposure is harmful. The bomb studies did not have low level radiation data. The Linear No Threshold model is quite falsified. I am 77 years old and particularly healthy with > 27.4 mSv exposure.
Why do all discussions ignore the use of nuclear reactors in the entire US submarine fleet and all aircraft carriers? There are literally TENS of THOUSANDS of our friends and relatives living extremely close to these power generators. To be fair, the Russian equivalent submarines have their problems. But we have proven over and over again the reliable safety of nuclear power.
My answer and a reference to another answer from one with apparently hands-on-experience:
1) Not all discussions . . . one finds the mention of the small nuclear reactors used in the US Navy marine fleet in plenty of rational discussion about nuclear power, including such right here on WUWT.
2) Nuclear reactors as used by the US Navy are far different from nuclear reactors as used in land based commercial power plants. See the following explanation from a poster named Josh Talbot who claims to be a reactor operator in the USN and licensed by the NRC as a Senior Reactor Operator (ref: https://www.quora.com/How-do-naval-nuclear-reactors-differ-from-those-used-in-commercial-power-plants ):
“Q: What makes U.S. naval nuclear propulsion plants so safe compared to other nuclear reactors, like those in commercial use or in other countries’ navies?
“A: Four things:
“1: Incredibly negative temperature coefficient of reactivity. Basically the opposite of Chernobyl. Other civilian plants have negative temperature coefficients, but not nearly of the same magnitude.
“2: Normally operated well below 100% power, as opposed to civilian plants which generally run over 99.5% whenever possible. As a result, they produce much less decay heat relative to the hardware designed to cool it.
“3: Built like a brick sh*thouse. This is military equipment. It’s designed to handle having things blown up next to it. Some foreign navies (e.g. Russian) aren’t interested in spending money on safety, and it shows. Containment buildings in civilized countries can take a direct hit from a 747 without batting an eye, but large missiles, torpedoes, etc? That’s pushing it.
“4: Literally surrounded by an absolutely massive and highly effective heatsink. Worst case, the reactor compartment floods and nothing ever leaves the vessel. Some SMR designs keep their equipment submerged in giant pools of water for much the same reason.”
Yes, Georgia’s nuclear plants look like a boondoggle and did not turn out well. Vogtle Units 3 and 4 took more than a decade to build and finally entered service in 2023—over seven years late. The project cost more than $30 billion, exceeding the budget by $18 billion.
Yet compared to California’s High‑Speed Rail project, Vogtle almost looks disciplined. Approved by voters in 2008 with a $9–10 billion bond, the rail line was supposed to connect San Francisco to Los Angeles in under three hours, completed by 2020. The original cost estimate was $33 billion. Instead, costs ballooned to more than $106 billion—over triple the estimate—and the project remains unfinished.
Both projects suffered from overregulation and mismanagement. But in California’s case, the situation is worse: construction began before the land for the full route was even purchased, putting the cart before the horse. At least the power company behind Vogtle secured land acquisition before breaking ground.
One emendation : Having a friend in Obninsk Russia , I met at the 1992 APL conference held at a nuclear training facility in Leningrad , I’ve learned the first functioning peaceful nuclear power plant was there a couple of years before the English .
” Connected to the power grid in June 1954, Obninsk was the first grid-connected nuclear power plant in the world, i.e. the first nuclear reactor that produced electricity industrially, … “
The plant’s history is correct, but needs some perspective.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obninsk_Nuclear_Power_Plant :
“The single reactor unit at the plant, AM-1 (“Атом Мирный”, Atom Mirny, Russian for “Peaceful Atom”), had a total electrical capacity of 6 MW and a net capacity of around 5 MWe. Thermal output was 30 MW. It was a prototype design using a graphite moderator and water coolant.”
So:
— its rated power output (5 MWe) would qualify it today as being more “research reactor”, or “micro reactor”, not even close to being at the lower end of the range of power output discussed for SMRs (10–300 MWe)
— overall power conversion efficiency was around 17%, poor compared to the today’s typical value of about 35% efficiency for 0.5–1 GW pressurized-water fission reactor designs
— Wiki even refers to it being a “prototype design” and that its “main task was to carry out experimental studies on 17 test loops installed in the reactor”.
So, yeah, let’s give credit where credit is due . . . full credit, that is.
So, you’re not disputing the facts – just complaining about them. Maybe you could complain that my statement that “adding CO2 to air doesn’t make thermometers hotter” doesn’t include methane or water vapour. Or that I used English, discriminating against native Aramaic speakers!
No GHE – that’s a fact. Complaining that you don’t like me saying it, won’t help you.
We can make a good start on building more reactors by putting a bounty on lawyers.
The Chinese Linglong One SMR has been operational sine 2023