Nuclear energy: Past, present and future

More specifically, the NRC is unduly slowing or increasing costs for the nuclear industry in several specific areas. First, the NRC requires regulated companies to pay 90 percent of the cost of their regulatory reviews. This incentivizes lengthy review processes and a lot of billable time, as the fees are used to pay for the commission's operations and salaries.

Another major challenge with the NRC regulatory framework is that they are based on a flawed radiation framework known as linear no Threshold (LNT). The framework greatly overstates the effects of low doses of radiation. The LNT guidelines require nuclear power plants to take extreme measures to reduce any possible chance of radioactive exposure, resulting in significant cost implications in design and construction standards. Nuclear power complexes subject to these standards require billions of taxpayer and utility customer dollars to meet these ridiculous "gold standard" regulations.

Finally, the NRC still lacks a regulatory framework for advanced reactors and small modular reactors (SMRs), making it difficult for companies to understand how they will be regulated in order to design reactors and prepare the corresponding application documents.

Public opinion is tepid

Public opinion on nuclear power is divided, with about half of Americans supporting it and half opposing it. The poll shows that Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are more likely than Democrats/Democratic-leaning people to say the federal government should encourage the production of nuclear energy (42 percent versus 32 percent). However, Democrats and climate advocates are slowly increasing their support for nuclear power and its place in the climate agenda, with a majority of Americans supporting a diversified energy strategy rather than calling for 100 percent renewable energy.

Fortunately, public figures are also beginning to change their attitudes toward nuclear power. Climate activist Greta Thunberg recently came out in support of nuclear power for the first time, saying it was "a mistake to shut down nuclear power stations to focus on coal". Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and nuclear influencer Isodope have also voiced calls for more nuclear power as the solution to our clean, stable electricity needs.

Some government support

Building and operating nuclear power plants has historically required high upfront costs and long payback periods, making it difficult to obtain financing for all but the largest and most well-capitalized companies or government entities. China's nuclear industry, for example, benefits from central planning and financial support from the national government. China has pledged to break ground on 150 new reactors over the next 15 years (it currently has 53), with 23 currently under construction.

Similarly, all of France's nuclear power plants (which provide 70% of the country's electricity) are owned and operated by EDF, a vertically integrated power company that is now fully owned by the French government. In a deregulated, free-market economy like the United States, the development of nuclear energy can become more difficult, especially because of the large upfront capital required to build a new plant.

U.S. support for the nuclear industry has historically been limited, especially when it comes to the construction and operation of nuclear plants (decommissioning, however, is subsidized). Renewable energy gets more support through tax credits and subsidies. Between 2011 and 2016, renewables received more than three times as much federal incentive help as oil, gas, coal and nuclear combined, and 27 times as much as nuclear.

However, the Inflation Reduction Act was a breakthrough in federal funding for the nuclear industry. For the first time ever, existing nuclear reactors are eligible for a production tax credit. However, in terms of the amount of subsidies received, the nuclear industry is still on an uneven playing field with renewable energy. The IRA sets aside $30 billion for nuclear power to provide 20 percent of U.S. electricity and $127 billion for wind and solar power to provide 12 percent of U.S. electricity.

High costs and delays

Building in the real world is hard, and getting worse at it. New York's Second Avenue subway and California's high-speed rail project are just two of many examples of billions of dollars spent with little to show for it. Nuclear power plants are no exception - they are large-scale, bespoke, complex engineering projects that must adhere to strict regulatory standards. Building reactors on time and on budget is the exception, not the norm, and we've lost the ability to build them.

Given the shrinking state of the nuclear industry and the historic lack of government support, it's not surprising that the United States has seen only two sets of new reactors break ground since 1985. Fast forward to today, and only Vogtle in Georgia is scheduled to be completed. Sadly, Vogtle doesn't paint the most flattering picture. The project cost about $30 billion, nearly double the original budget, and is more than six years behind schedule.