American nuclear power plants are seeking a new role amid climate change and the development of artificial intelligence.
After decades of decline, the U.S. nuclear power sector is experiencing a rebirth — driven by the climate crisis and the rapid rise of artificial intelligence. But is the enthusiasm enough to overcome billion-dollar costs and decades of waiting?
According to material from Bloomberg Originals.
Three Mile Island. Chernobyl. Fukushima. For decades these names were symbols of catastrophe and arguments against nuclear power. But 2024 could have been the year the U.S. nuclear industry wrote a new page in its history — and this time not a negative one.
The United States, which once had 112 operating reactors and was considered a pioneer of peaceful nuclear power, gradually lost ground: from 2013 to 2022, 13 plants were shut down. The reason was not accidents but the market. Natural gas got cheaper, wind and solar generation grew, and nuclear power lost that economic battle.
Today the picture is changing. On the horizon is the 2050 climate deadline, the net-zero goal adopted by more than 100 countries. And suddenly nuclear energy — the only large-scale source of electricity without carbon emissions — is back in the spotlight.
From triumph to decline and back again
The American nuclear industry was born in the 1950s — a wartime marvel turned peaceful force. Reactors were built en masse in the 1960s and 1970s, and at its peak the country had 112 operating units. But 1979 put an end to that era: the Three Mile Island accident caused widespread panic and froze new construction.
For decades after that the industry survived rather than grew. Today the U.S. operates 94 reactors, providing about 20% of the country’s electricity generation. Most of them are peers of the 1970s, licensed for 40 years of operation. They are now being extended to 80 years and even beyond — and that in itself is a small revolution.
“Solar power, wind, and batteries must scale as fast as possible. But even that will not be enough. That’s why we need tools like nuclear energy,” says one expert
Vogtle: a victory at the cost of seven years’ delay
In the early 2010s President George W. Bush launched the Nuclear Power 2010 program — an attempt to revive the industry. Of all those who wanted to build new reactors, only one company made it to the finish line. Southern Company completed the expansion of the Vogtle plant in Georgia in early 2024 — but with a seven-year delay and a budget that more than doubled the initial $14 billion.
Project leaders do not hide the difficulties: disrupted supply chains, retraining workers, a contractor’s bankruptcy, the COVID-19 pandemic. But they insist that the mere fact of completing construction is a victory. “This is a monumental achievement that proves nuclear plants can be built in the U.S.,” the company says.
However, experts note that Vogtle could be the last large reactor in the U.S. for many years. Utilities that would have to finance subsequent projects are not rushing to sign checks for tens of billions of dollars.
Small modular reactors: a bet on factory-built nuclear
If large reactors lose on cost and timelines, startups offer another path — small modular reactors (SMRs). The concept is simple: manufacture components in a factory, then deliver and assemble them on site. Cheaper, faster, more scalable.
At least a dozen companies are developing different SMR configurations. Among them are Kairos Power, which uses molten fluoride salt instead of water as a coolant, and Bill Gates’s TerraPower, which is already laying the foundation for its first commercial reactor in Wyoming. At the same time, the leading NuScale project was closed at the end of 2023 — a victim of inflation and rising interest rates.
Industry analysts predict the first working SMR will appear in the mid-2030s. At the same time, about $7.1 billion in private investment is being directed toward fusion — a technology that promises virtually limitless clean energy but for now remains a matter for the future.
Greens vs. nuclear: the debate rages on
Despite growing enthusiasm, nuclear power is not undisputed. Organizations like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace remain firmly opposed: the risk of reactor meltdowns, radioactive waste, contamination of water, soil and air. “Any dose of ionizing radiation, however small, carries a risk of cancer,” environmentalists warn.
Opponents of nuclear energy also point to uneven subsidies: the industry has traditionally received disproportionately large government support compared with renewables. Their position is to bet on wind, solar and energy storage systems without taking on the risks of nuclear power.
What’s next: cautious optimism
Most analysts agree: in the next five years we should expect the restart of several closed nuclear plants. After 2030 the first SMRs may appear. But the key decision rests with utilities and investors — they are the ones who must sign the checks.
“When I started writing about nuclear power in 2019, the only storyline was: which plant will close next? Today the narrative has completely changed: who will extend a license for another 20 years? Who will be the first to build a new large reactor?” — shares one of the leading industry journalists.
There is enthusiasm. Technologies are advancing. The climate won’t wait. The only question is whether the American nuclear industry can turn hopes into kilowatt-hours — and do it in time.