NUCLEAR POWER: Still Not Viable without Subsidies

The report argues that the U.S. nuclear power industry has relied on extensive taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies for over 50 years, which often exceed the value of the energy produced. It details how these subsidies shift construction, operating, and long-term risks—such as waste management and accident liability—from private investors to the public. The document concludes that continuing this pattern with new reactors would be an expensive 'leap of faith' that could divert resources from more cost-effective climate change mitigation options.

• Historical 'legacy' subsidies for nuclear power are estimated to exceed 7 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is approximately 140 percent of the average wholesale power price from 1960 to 2008, meaning the subsidies were more valuable than the power produced.
• Ongoing subsidies for existing reactors range from 0.7 ¢/kWh for investor-owned utilities (representing 13% of power value) to significantly higher amounts for publicly owned utilities, where the impact on competitive viability is proportionally higher.
• Subsidies for new nuclear reactors are projected to be between 4.2 and 11.4 ¢/kWh, potentially representing 70 to 200 percent of the projected value of the power produced.
• Federal loan guarantees under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 are the largest construction subsidy for new investor-owned reactors, shifting financing and building risks to taxpayers; for a single 1,600-MW reactor, this could generate $15 billion in subsidies over 30 years.
• The nuclear industry benefits from the Price-Anderson Act, which caps third-party liability for accidents at levels significantly lower than what would be required for full private liability insurance.
• Long-term operating risks, including decommissioning and waste management, are shifted to the public; the federal Nuclear Waste Repository is expected to cost nearly $100 billion, with 80 percent attributed to the power sector.
• Nuclear power is identified as the most water-intensive large-scale thermal energy technology in use, and it often benefits from under-priced cooling water and priority access to water resources.

APA

Koplow, D. (2011). NUCLEAR POWER: Still Not Viable without Subsidies. Union of Concerned Scientists. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/nuclear_subsidies_summary.pdf

Chicago

Koplow, Doug. NUCLEAR POWER: Still Not Viable without Subsidies. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2011. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/nuclear_subsidies_summary.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Koplow |first1=Doug |title=NUCLEAR POWER: Still Not Viable without Subsidies |publisher=Union of Concerned Scientists |date=February 2011 |url=https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/nuclear_subsidies_summary.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{koplow2011nuclear, author = {Koplow, Doug}, title = {{NUCLEAR POWER: Still Not Viable without Subsidies}}, institution = {Union of Concerned Scientists}, year = {2011}, month = feb, url = {https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/nuclear_subsidies_summary.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }