Nuclear Has Changed. Will the U.S. Change with It?

Historically, opposition to nuclear power has been linked to safety and environmental concerns — including waste — and on the business side, to high costs and low profits. What’s different — is today’s nuclear power safer, cleaner, more cost-effective?
In terms of security, when people were concerned after 9/11, changes were undertaken. And obviously, a lot of lessons were drawn after Fukushima. There has been a continuous set of improvements over the years.

When you ask what’s different: There is a whole new generation called advanced reactors. One of the problems over the years is that large reactors got larger and larger, and each one became a bespoke project. There were too many change orders within a single reactor project, and that just kills you on budget.

One thing is to go to factory-built, small reactors that can be standardized, punched out like a cookie cutter, the same design over and over. The more of these things you punch out, the cheaper it gets, and the more practice you have installing them, the cheaper it gets. If you do things like that, you can improve on safety and budget.

The waste issue depends on the specific reactor technology. Some advanced reactors are based on existing Gen III designs, so their waste would be the same but with smaller quantities because the reactors are smaller. Gen IV reactors use fast neutrons, which allow a more efficient use of fuel and therefore a reduction of total volumes. Some Gen IV reactors can burn used fuel that has already been irradiated, which would have the effect of both burning out some of the minor actinides and turning what is now considered “waste” into a source of more energy. At the end of the day, all nuclear waste, whether from current generation or advanced reactors, will need to be disposed in deep geologic formations; this is a safe process with well-known technology.

The Biden administration late last year announced several new U.S. nuclear benchmarks at the United Nations Climate Change Conference. Are those goals realistic?
They’re ambitious, but I think they’re necessary if we’re going to reach our targets. At the Belfer Center, I’m working on a project on how to get 200 gigawatts of new nuclear built in the United States by 2050. A bunch of things have to happen right for that to be achievable. But I have great confidence that when there’s something that’s truly important, and people in the United States put their minds to it, we can do great things. But it’s going to take smart government policies. We’re going to have to have lean and effective regulations. We’ve got to figure out a way to spread the cost and risk sufficiently, so you induce people to act sooner rather than later.

Government loan guarantees that reduce the cost of capital can both defray first-mover risks and also give confidence to the private sector to co-invest. If we concentrate our efforts, we have a chance to restore U.S. global leadership.

What factors will determine whether those goals are reached or derailed?
Government is going to have to be there in terms of smart tax policy, in terms of providing things like cost-overrun insurance. The government also can be an important source of demand, especially for small and micro reactors that have potential applications such as supporting micro grids for things that can’t afford to go dark — military bases, things of that character. If there’s a cyber threat from an enemy or from some natural event, I would recommend the government buy a bunch of these small reactors to help them get over that first-of-a-kind challenge that is so hard to overcome for private entrepreneurs who can’t wait decades for an adequate return on investment. Private capital can then take the confidence that comes from having strong co-investment and commitments from the federal side.

You’re going to have to have the engineering, procurement, and construction contractors who got rusty over the last few decades get back into the game and execute well. And we’re going to have to have the talent pool grow and training programs at the university level, but also in the trades and organized labor. Many thousands and, ultimately, hundreds of thousands of jobs are needed.

You’re going to need well-trained people in the supply chain manufacturing these very precise components and parts. It’s going to take a group effort. And to maintain the social license to do this, we have to bring all of civil society along with us. So far, in recent years, you see a lot of very positive movement in that direction.

Christina Pazzanese is Harvard Staff Writer. This article is published courtesy of the Harvard Gazette, Harvard University’s official newspaper. This story has been updated to reflect that Daniel Poneman served as CEO of Centrus Energy, a supplier of nuclear fuel, from 2015 through 2023.