Nuclear power has become increasingly prominent in the news and broader discourse about the clean energy transition. After decades of contracting investment that saw the U.S. nuclear fleet decline from a high point of 112 operating reactors to its current complement of 94 reactors, nuclear technology appears to be on the rebound. In September 2024, Microsoft announced a plan to purchase, reactivate and privately operate a decommissioned nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania. A few months before that, California government leaders rallied to postpone the scheduled closure of the state’s only remaining nuclear power plant for at least a decade. The latest surveys show support for nuclear power at an all-time high.

The wave of enthusiasm for nuclear power is welcome news to anyone working in the clean energy transition, but it would be unwise to assume that shifts in policymaking consensus or public sentiment will become permanent. This brief makes the case for nuclear power — and specifically the long-term operation of existing nuclear reactors in the U.S. — as imperative to the cause of decarbonization. It identifies the claims, anxieties and assumptions that commonly animate anti-nuclear energy policy choices and political mobilization (forces that directly led to the premature closing of the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York, and which continue to complicate the debate over relicensing California’s Diablo Canyon facility). Finally, this brief outlines strategies to counter opposition by popularizing factual messages about the economic, environmental and public health advantages that make the existing fleet of nuclear plants essential contributors to the U.S. energy mix.

Introduction: An Indispensable Source of Carbon-Free Electricity

As part of a global effort to avoid the worst effects of climate change, the United States has set its sights on achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. A key component of this plan calls for the decarbonization of the electric grid by 2035. The U.S. grid derives only about 40% of its total electricity from carbon-free sources. Nuclear power plants account for roughly half of the carbon-free energy – and 20% of all energy – consumed in the U.S.

There are 94 nuclear reactors in the U.S. The average reactor is 42 years old, and operating licenses are set to expire for 44 of the nation’s reactors between now and 2039.[1] For much trend of recent history, all evidence suggests that the U.S. nuclear fleet’s days are numbered. Twelve plants have been decommissioned since 2013, primarily in markets where natural gas has driven wholesale electricity prices too low to sustain the operating costs of a nuclear plant. Environmental groups have also succeeded in shuttering some nuclear plants due to supposed safety and environmental risks.[2] 

For the U.S. to have any chance to meet its net-zero emissions timeline, it must reverse this trend. “Getting to zero” means gradually sunsetting the coal, natural gas and other carbon-emitting plants that power 60% of the grid and replacing them with carbon-free capacity – while also keeping pace with demand for electricity, which is expected to double between now and 2050.[3] Every carbon-free megawatt of electricity is crucial to this project, and policymakers should therefore work to keep as much existing nuclear energy online for as long as it is safe to do so.

The case for a maximalist approach to nuclear plant license renewal must address potential objections (or grounds for support) on three different dimensions: the economic solvency of long-term nuclear plant operation, safety concerns (and public perceptions of safety) about long-term nuclear plant operation, and how the existing nuclear fleet fits into the environmental mission to decarbonize the grid.

The Economic Case for Long-Term Operation

The economic viability of nuclear plants is central to any argument for their long-term operation, and commercial nuclear power has faced economic headwinds in the past decade. A dozen nuclear reactors were shut down from 2013-21, all of which cited some form of financial distress as the primary reason for closure. Nonetheless, today’s energy marketplace is fundamentally different than that of even 2020, and the forward-looking economic view of nuclear power is an optimistic one. 

Revisiting Three Mile Island: Economic Pressure, Insolvency and Political Defeat
The 2019 retirement of the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear reactor – 15 years before its license was set to expire – offers a useful case-study in the market conditions that undermined nuclear plants in the preceding decade. Responsible for generating more than 90% of Pennsylvania’s carbon-free energy, the TMI reactor could no longer compete on cost as the exponential growth of shale development flooded the regional electricity market with cheap natural gas, driving energy prices down. State subsidies insulated “clean” energy sources from economic pressures, but legislators excluded nuclear power from the “environmentally beneficial” energy sources made eligible for government support. When lawmakers mounted a last-ditch effort to save the TMI reactor, a broad coalition of advocates – including both environmental groups and oil and gas interests – united to snuff it out. The opposition cheered the insolvency of nuclear power, characterized government intervention as a “bailout,” and exhorted legislators to move beyond the “aging energy sources of the past.”[4]

A New Economic Outlook
Five years later, the economic outlook for existing nuclear reactors is much improved. While U.S. clean energy initiatives have made promising progress in deploying renewable energy like wind and solar to the grid, the problems of intermittency have not yet been resolved at scale. Projected growth in energy demand – which may be amplified by orders of magnitude due to AI data processing – will place a premium on the reliable capacity nuclear reactors deliver. Energy market managers, facing the heightened scrutiny and the extraordinary challenge of balancing grid resiliency with decarbonization imperatives, will not take for granted nuclear plants’ immense, dependable, carbon-free contributions to the baseload.

In this new dynamic, major private and public sector actors have also signaled enthusiasm for nuclear power. The Biden administration’s bipartisan infrastructure act directed $6 billion to support nuclear plants facing “economic threat of premature closures.”[5] Microsoft’s blockbuster plan to restart and privately operate the TMI reactor reflects the growing private sector commitment to carbon-free operations — and a willingness to invest exorbitant sums on data centers to power AI.[6]

These are macro conditions under which nuclear energy is well-positioned to succeed. Long-term operation of existing reactors is especially attractive given the difficulties and prohibitive costs of building new nuclear reactors. Quantitative analysis supports this view. One study found that long-term operation of nuclear reactors by license renewal has a levelized cost of electricity that is competitive with all other forms of energy generation.[7]

With all this in mind, it’s safe to conclude that the economics broadly support a policy of long-term operation of nuclear reactors.

Addressing Safety — and Safety Concerns

While steep capital costs are often the greatest impediment to the development of nuclear technology, public concerns over safety have always loomed large in the politics that determine nuclear energy’s fate. Recent surveys reveal growing approval for nuclear technology, which suggests that these safety concerns may be receding – or that Americans are more willing to accept perceived risks if nuclear energy can mitigate the greater threat of climate change.[8]

Despite this encouraging trend, a concerted effort to renew licenses for dozens of nuclear reactors often described as “aging” or “at the end of their lifecycle” could prompt a new wave of nuclear anxiety. According to experts, long-term operation of existing nuclear reactors presents no novel or additional safety risks, as long as the proper protocols remain in place.[9] But policymakers should not take for granted that the public will share these views.

To avoid costly public opposition, advocates must address safety concerns through engagement with the public. Proactive communication is key; if the public is given reason to believe operating a nuclear reactor for up to 80 years is dangerous, it will be challenging to persuade them otherwise after the fact.

Public messaging should follow these recommendations.

Recommendation 1: Emphasize Nuclear Energy’s Exceptional Safety Record
Nuclear energy’s greatest reputational liability is its perceived “dread risk.” Dread risk, the fear that a technology may unleash a deadly, uncontrollable catastrophe, is one of the most powerful amplifiers of layperson risk perception.[10] These perceptions are fed by vivid images and narratives about nuclear technology that have entered the popular consciousness: mushroom clouds over Hiroshima, the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown, and so on.[11]

To combat these perceptions, nuclear energy advocates should underscore American nuclear energy’s exceptional safety record and emphasize that nuclear energy is, by all metrics, “safer” than fossil fuel-derived energy. These messages include:

• The U.S. has not had a notable nuclear safety incident since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, which had no measurable effect on the health of workers or the public.

• Living near a nuclear reactor carries very little real risk of exposure to radiation – the amount of radon in the average U.S. home poses more than 200 times the radiation exposure threat.[12] 

• Studies examining the ratio of deaths per unit of energy generated find that nuclear energy in the U.S. is, by this metric, safer than all fossil fuel-derived energy. Nuclear energy in the U.S. is also safer than nuclear energy administered in other countries, which speaks to the strength of U.S. safety protocols administered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.[13]

• Trust in institutions is important when addressing public perceptions of risk. Messages that speak to this safety record and the institutional competence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could be useful in building public trust in nuclear energy and the NRC’s license-renewal decisions.[14]

Recommendation 2: Present License Renewals as Continuation of Status Quo
Research shows that the public thinks it’s perfectly normal to renew licenses for safe and effective nuclear power plants.[15] However, if a second license renewal approving a plant to operate for a total of 80 years is presented as something controversial or out of the ordinary — as it has in the political fight over California’s Diablo Canyon relicensing — it may be perceived as “unknown” territory and trigger amplified risk perceptions.[16]

Nuclear advocates can address this by framing license renewals as continuation of a functioning status quo. This framing may best be underscored by revealing details about the daily safety scrutiny to which all reactors, regardless of age, are subjected. Public fears about nuclear are dominated by concerns of a nuclear meltdown (rather than long-term concerns about storing or transporting nuclear waste). Trust in competent, day-to-day operational management may help mollify this concern.[17]

These messages will help to properly frame the license renewal process as a part of the regular course of nuclear plant operation:

• The same regulatory agencies that have safely managed nuclear reactors since their inception will continue to exercise the same protocols through 60 or 80 years of operation.

• Nuclear reactors are subject to daily safety inspections by the NRC and regulators will shut any plant down that is not operating safely.[18]

Recommendation 3: Avoid ‘Life Extension’ and Related Terminology
Nuclear relicensing is often broadly referred to as “nuclear life extension.” This framing – and other terminology like “aging” – suggests nuclear plants are near death, in need of life-saving intervention. Advocates should instead use a more anodyne term, like “nuclear relicensing” or “license renewal,” to avoid these dire associations.[19]

The Environmental Case for Long-Term Operation

Nuclear energy has an uneasy relationship with environmentalist factions. Environmentalist factions have been central to the opposition of California Governor Gavin Newson’s effort to renew the license for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant – the state’s only remaining nuclear power plant. Activists insist that spending to keep the plant open should instead be directed to developing renewable energy.[20] The Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) played a key role in securing the permanent closure of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in New York, by alleging that the plant was contaminating groundwater and by showing how a Fukushima- or Chernobyl-scale catastrophe would endanger New York City.[21] In both cases, environmental activists’ positions run counter to clean energy progress; since its closure, the capacity generated by Indian Point has been replaced by natural gas plants – a step backward for New York’s emissions goals.[22]

Recommendation 1: Place Nuclear Power in the Context of Broader Energy Mix
The actions in New York and California align with broader observations about preferences related to decarbonization policies. One study found that funding renewable energy sources and battery storage research to be the most popular decarbonization policies. The same study found that respondents significantly overestimated current energy production from renewable resources.[23] It is possible that these same misperceptions are informing environmentalist attitudes towards nuclear energy.

Reducing carbon emissions is a major priority for environmentalists. Messaging that places nuclear energy into context of the broader energy mix and decarbonization goals could be useful in winning over environmentally-minded nuclear skeptics , such as:

• Nuclear power plants generate half of all carbon-free electricity in the U.S. In our current energy system, nuclear generation removed from the grid will most likely be replaced by natural gas or other carbon-emitting energy sources.

Recommendation 2: Present Nuclear Power as Facilitating Renewable Energy Development
Environmentalists skeptical of nuclear power are likely to favor renewable energy – and have deep concerns about climate change. Framing the long-term operation of existing nuclear as complementary to the development of renewable energy may be a useful approach:

• By extending the existing nuclear fleet, we can build a “low-cost bridge” to the carbon-free energy mix of the future, providing a foundation of carbon-free energy as we develop more sophisticated renewable energy technology, such as batteries to solve the intermittency problem of wind and solar.

Recommendation 3: Highlight Equity Issues of Grid Reliability
Environmentally-minded people tend to be more liberal, and therefore are more likely to have a moral foundation grounded in concern for the wellbeing of others and principles of equality.[24] In places like California that have taken a maximalist approach to renewable energy, the variability and intermittency of supply have (among other factors) contributed to a rise in blackouts.[25] Power outages disproportionately affect low-income and minority communities.[26] Appealing to the moral foundation in environmental groups could be an effective approach, such as:

• Failure to keep existing nuclear power on the grid will only further destabilize power supply, leading to more blackouts that inflict harm on vulnerable populations.

Conclusion: A Rare Opportunity to Influence Political Views

Individuals’ views on politics and social issues are typically static, especially after a dominant normative view is established. The recent changes in public sentiment towards nuclear energy — combined with the dynamic nature of the clean energy transition — suggest this may be a moment of shifting equilibrium in which the public will be more receptive to fact-based pro-nuclear energy information. Continuing to build public consensus in favor of nuclear energy is especially important, given that recent history shows how small factions of detractors can have an outsized impact on energy policy. The road to decarbonizing the electric grid will be a bumpy one, and political conflict is inevitable. With licenses for 44 nuclear reactors set to expire over the next 15 years, proactive, pro-nuclear thinking and political strategy today may save precious time and resources in the critical years to come.

References

[1] Nuclear Energy Fact Sheet 2023, Nuclear Energy Institute, Accessed March 6, 2024.

[2] Holt, Mark and Brown, Philip. “U.S. Nuclear Plant Shutdowns, State Interventions, and Policy Concerns.” Congressional Research Service, #R46820, 1, 6.

[3] “Transcript: Ezra Klein Interviews Jesse Jenkins,” The Ezra Klein Show, September 20, 2022.

[4] Pell, Hannah, et. al. “Why did the Three Mile Island Unit 1 Reactor Close?” Physics Today, vol. 75, no. 6, 2022.

[5] “Biden signs infrastructure bill into law,” Nuclear News. November 16, 2021.

[6]  “Microsoft deal propels Three Mile Island restart, with key permits still needed,” Reuters, September 21, 2024.

[7] “US regulators look to license renewals to keep fleet active,” Reuters Events, March 2, 2021.

[8] Leppert, Rebecca and Kennedy, Brian. “Growing share of Americans favor more nuclear power,” Pew Research Center, August 18, 2023.

[9] “What’s the Lifespan for a Nuclear Reactor? Much Longer Than You Might Think.” U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy, April 16, 2020.

[10] Slovic, Paul and Weber, Elke. “Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events,” Paper prepared for conference “Risk Management Strategies in an Uncertain World,” April 2022, 10.

[11] “Future Brief: Public risk perception and environmental policy,” European Commission Science for Environment Policy, Issue 8, October 2014, 4.

[12] “Nuclear Energy Factsheet,” University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems, Accessed March 6, 2024.

[13] Conca, James. “How Deadly is Your Kilowatt? We Rank the Killer Energy Sources,” Forbes.com, June 10, 2012.

[14] Future Brief, 6.

[15] Bisconti.

[16] Slovic, Paul. “Perception of Risk.” Science 236, no. 4799 (1987), 283.

[17] STOUTENBOROUGH, JAMES W., ARNOLD VEDLITZ, and XINSHENG LIU. “The

Influence of Specific Risk Perceptions on Public Policy Support: An Examination of Energy Policy.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 658 (2015): 102–20.

[18] Bisconti, Ann Stouffer, Ph.D. “Defying Conventional Wisdom Through Research: The Case of

License Renewal.” Bisconti Research, Inc. October 2022.

[19] ibid.

[20] Blood, Michael. “Environmentalists oppose more life for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,” Associated Press, May 17, 2022.

[21] “Nuclear Accident at Indian Point: Consequences and Costs,” NRDC Energy Facts, October 2011.

[22] McGeehan, Patrick. “Indian Point Is Shutting Down. That Means More Fossil Fuel,” New York Times, April 12, 2021.

[23] Miniard, Deidra, Joseph Kantenbacher, and Shahzeen Z. Attari. “Shared Vision for a

Decarbonized Future Energy System in the United States.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117, no. 13 (2020).

[24] Graham, Haidt, and Nosek. “Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2009, Vol. 96, 1029-1046, 1031.

[25] Hayward, Leslie. “California’s blackouts and renewable energy: Culprit or imperative?” EnergySource, The Atlantic Council, September 2, 2020.

[26] Stimpson, Ashley. “‘It takes a toll’: US low-income and communities of color endure longer power outages,” The Guardian, February 8, 2024.