The Nuclear Power Dilemma

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) finds that over one-third of US nuclear plants are unprofitable or scheduled to close due to cheap natural gas and falling renewable costs. Without carbon-reduction policies, early retirements could increase US power sector emissions by 4% to 6% by 2035. The report recommends adopting carbon pricing or low-carbon electricity standards and conditioning any nuclear subsidies on strict safety performance and consumer protections.

• More than one-third of existing US nuclear plants, representing 22% of total capacity, are either unprofitable or scheduled for closure. Specifically, 21 plants (22.7 GW of capacity) are either slated for retirement or have projected operating costs that exceed revenues between 2018 and 2022.
• The economic distress of nuclear plants is driven by several factors, including the availability of cheap natural gas, reduced electricity demand, lower costs for renewable energy, and rising operating costs. Single-reactor plants are more vulnerable than multi-reactor plants due to a lack of economies of scale.
• Geographically, the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions have the highest risk of early retirement. The Midcontinent Independent System Operator has the most unprofitable capacity (8.3 GW), while PJM Interconnection in the Mid-Atlantic has the most marginal capacity (8.6 GW).
• In a scenario with no new policies and low natural gas prices, early nuclear retirements could lead to a cumulative increase of 4% to 6% (0.7 to 1.25 billion metric tons) in US power sector carbon emissions by 2035, as generation is replaced by coal and natural gas.
• Implementing a national carbon price or a Low-Carbon Electricity Standard (LCES) would significantly reduce CO2 emissions compared to early retirement scenarios. Cumulative power sector emissions would be 28% lower under a carbon price and 19% lower under an LCES by 2035.
• Carbon-reduction policies provide substantial public health and economic benefits by reducing sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions. These benefits are estimated to range from $132 billion under the LCES case to $227 billion under the carbon price case cumulatively from 2018 to 2035.
• The report argues that any financial support for nuclear plants should be conditional. It recommends that support be limited to reactors with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) highest safety rating and that plant owners be required to provide transparent financial data to prove need.

APA

Clemmer, S., Richardson, J., Sattler, S., & Lochbaum, D. (2018). The Nuclear Power Dilemma. Union of Concerned Scientists. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/11/Nuclear-Power-Dilemma-executive-summary.pdf

Chicago

Clemmer, Steve, Jeremy Richardson, Sandra Sattler, and Dave Lochbaum. The Nuclear Power Dilemma. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2018. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/11/Nuclear-Power-Dilemma-executive-summary.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Clemmer |first1=Steve |last2=Richardson |first2=Jeremy |last3=Sattler |first3=Sandra |last4=Lochbaum |first4=Dave |title=The Nuclear Power Dilemma |publisher=Union of Concerned Scientists |date=November 2018 |url=https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/11/Nuclear-Power-Dilemma-executive-summary.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{clemmer2018nuclear, author = {Clemmer, Steve and Richardson, Jeremy and Sattler, Sandra and Lochbaum, Dave}, title = {{The Nuclear Power Dilemma}}, institution = {Union of Concerned Scientists}, year = {2018}, month = nov, url = {https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2018/11/Nuclear-Power-Dilemma-executive-summary.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }