The Nuclear Power Dilemma

The Union of Concerned Scientists finds that over one-third of US nuclear plants are unprofitable or scheduled to close, primarily due to low natural gas prices. Without new policies, early retirements could increase power sector carbon emissions by 4% to 6% by 2035 as plants are replaced by natural gas and coal. The report argues that national carbon pricing or a low-carbon electricity standard would preserve existing nuclear capacity, diversify the energy mix, and significantly reduce emissions with minimal impact on household electricity bills. It further recommends that any financial support for distressed plants be contingent on high safety performance ratings from the NRC and transparency in financial reporting.

• More than one-third of existing US nuclear plants, representing 22 percent of total capacity, are either unprofitable or scheduled for closure. As of 2018, 16 plants are unprofitable and five are scheduled for retirement, totaling 22.7 GW of operating capacity.
• The primary driver for early nuclear retirements is the decline in wholesale power prices caused by low natural gas prices. Other contributing factors include stagnant electricity demand, falling costs for wind and solar, and rising operating costs for aging plants.
• Single-reactor plants face significantly higher economic risks than multiple-reactor plants; 77 percent of capacity from single-reactor plants is unprofitable or marginal, compared to 20 percent for multiple-reactor plants.
• Without new policies, early retirement of at-risk nuclear plants could lead to a cumulative 4% to 6% increase in US power sector carbon emissions by 2035 (0.7 to 1.25 billion metric tons) because they would be replaced primarily by natural gas and coal.
• Implementing a national carbon price or a low-carbon electricity standard (LCES) would reduce cumulative power sector CO2 emissions by 19% to 28% (4 to 5.7 billion metric tons) through 2035 compared to a scenario with early retirements.
• Carbon-reduction policies are estimated to be affordable, with typical household monthly electricity bills increasing by only $0.74 to $1.03 (1.0% to 1.4%) by 2035. The cumulative net benefits, including public health and climate gains, range from $61 billion (LCES) to $234 billion (carbon price).
• Between 2000 and 2018, US reactors met or exceeded NRC safety standards 80.5% of the time (Column 1 rating). The report recommends that financial support be limited to reactors maintaining this highest safety rating.
• The report identifies a trend of industry pressure on the NRC to weaken safety and security standards to lower costs, such as reducing mock terrorist attack scenarios from three to one and resisting rigorous post-Fukushima safety upgrades.

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-full-report.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-full-report.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-full-report.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-full-report.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }