WASHINGTON, D.C. - In 2024, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) continued its aggressive push to expand nuclear energy across the nation. Through a combination of large-scale investments, regulatory changes, and new reactor technologies, the federal government is promoting nuclear power as a critical part of the clean energy transition. However, critics argue that this strategy neglects the long-term risks and costs associated with nuclear energy, including radioactive waste management, environmental impacts, and safety concerns.
Plant Vogtle: The Costliest Nuclear Project in U.S. History
In April, Vogtle Unit 4 in Georgia entered commercial service, completing the power plant’s controversial expansion. With two AP1000 reactors now operational, Plant Vogtle became the largest power generator in the country, hailed by the DOE as a landmark in clean energy production.
Yet, the $35 billion project has faced years of delays and cost overruns, raising questions about its financial viability. While federal loan guarantees totaling $12 billion helped cover expenses, taxpayers ultimately bear the burden of subsidizing a project plagued by inefficiencies. Opponents of nuclear energy point out that these funds could have been directed toward renewable energy solutions, which lack the risks posed by nuclear waste and potential accidents.
Recommissioning Old Plants: A Risky Bet
The DOE’s Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Program, created under the Inflation Reduction Act, is providing significant funding to reopen shuttered nuclear facilities. Michigan’s Palisades plant is set to receive $1.52 billion in federal loans for recommissioning by 2025, while Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island Unit 1 could restart operations under the new name Crane Clean Energy Center by 2028.
While proponents tout these projects as economic opportunities that support local jobs, critics warn of the dangers of restarting aging reactors. Facilities like Palisades, which closed in 2022, were initially decommissioned due to operational and safety concerns. Reopening them risks costly repairs, potential system failures, and the inherent dangers of operating outdated technology.
Advanced Reactor Projects: Promises vs. Reality
The DOE is investing heavily in new reactor designs, including small modular reactors (SMRs) and microreactors, as part of its Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. These projects, such as TerraPower’s sodium-cooled Natrium reactor in Wyoming and Kairos Power’s salt-cooled Hermes reactor in Tennessee, are marketed as safer and more efficient than traditional reactors.
Despite the fanfare, these advanced reactors face significant hurdles, including high costs, licensing delays, and unresolved issues with radioactive waste. DOE’s $900 million initiative to demonstrate advanced light-water SMRs aims to lower costs through a consortium-based approach, but critics argue that the technology remains unproven at scale.
Expanding the Nuclear Workforce
The DOE has also launched initiatives to train a new generation of nuclear workers, emphasizing job creation and workforce development. At peak construction, Plant Vogtle supported 9,000 jobs, and efforts to retrain coal workers for nuclear roles are underway.
However, detractors question whether these jobs justify the environmental and social costs of nuclear expansion. Unlike renewables, which offer sustainable and decentralized job opportunities, nuclear projects require extensive infrastructure, centralized operations, and long-term waste management.
Nuclear Fuel Supply Chain: A Double-Edged Sword
To reduce reliance on Russian uranium, the DOE is investing $3.4 billion in domestic uranium enrichment and storage capacity. While this strategy addresses geopolitical concerns, it raises alarms about the environmental toll of increased uranium mining and processing. Communities near proposed mining sites face heightened risks of contamination, while the global proliferation of enriched uranium adds complexity to nuclear security.
Coal-to-Nuclear Transitions: Reinventing Old Sites
The DOE is promoting coal-to-nuclear transitions as part of its plan to triple global nuclear capacity by 2050. Preliminary studies suggest that existing coal plant sites could host up to 95 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity, leveraging existing infrastructure and workforces.
Critics argue that these transitions disproportionately affect low-income communities and fail to consider the risks of hosting reactors near densely populated areas. Unlike wind or solar farms, nuclear plants introduce long-term liabilities, including decommissioning costs and radioactive waste storage.
Radioactive Waste: The Unsolved Problem
While the DOE is advancing plans for a federal interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel, the U.S. still lacks a permanent solution for radioactive waste. The proposed facility would initially store 15,000 metric tons of waste, but construction requires amendments to the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
With no permanent repository in place, spent fuel continues to accumulate at reactor sites across the country, increasing the risk of accidents and environmental contamination. Opponents argue that any expansion of nuclear energy exacerbates this unsolved crisis.
The Bigger Picture
As the DOE promotes nuclear power as a cornerstone of the clean energy transition, concerns about safety, waste, and financial accountability persist. Critics advocate for greater investment in renewable energy technologies, which are faster to deploy, safer, and free from the long-term hazards of radioactive waste.
Add comment
Comments