document_title: World Radio Day

question_text: what is the theme of the 2018 world radio day (wrd)

question_tokens: what is the theme of the 2018 world radio day ( wrd )

root

text: World Radio Day

text: Background[edit]

text: Following a request from the Spanish Radio Academy, on 20 September 2010 Spain proposed that the UNESCO Executive Board include an agenda item on the proclamation of a World Radio Day. UNESCO's Executive Board approved the agenda item in its provisional agenda, for the proclamation of a "World Radio Day" on 29 September 2011. UNESCO carried out a wide consultation in 2011 with diverse stakeholders, i.e. broadcasting associations; public, state, private, community and international broadcasters; UN agencies; funds and programmes; topic-related NGOs; academia; foundations and bilateral development agencies; as well as UNESCO Permanent Delegations and National Commissions for UNESCO. Among the answers, 91% were in favour of the project, including official support from the Arab States Broadcasting Union (ASBU), the Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union (ABU), the African Union of Broadcasting (AUB), the Caribbean Broadcasting Union (CBU), the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), the International Association of Broadcasting (IAB), the North American Broadcasters Association (NABA), the Organización de Telecomunicaciones Ibeoramericanas (OTI), BBC, URTI, Vatican Radio, etc. The results of this consultation are available in UNESCO's document 187 EX/13.[1][2]

tag: p

text: The Board recommended to the UNESCO 36th session of the General Conference that it proclaim a World Radio Day at its 36th session, and that this day be celebrated by UNESCO on 13 February, the anniversary of the day the United Nations established United Nations Radio in 1946. It also invited all United Nations Member States, organizations of the United Nations system and other international and regional organizations, professional associations and broadcasting unions, as well as civil society, including non-governmental organizations and individuals, to duly celebrate World Radio Day, in the way that each considers most adequate. The Board further requested that UNESCO's Director-General brought the resolution to the attention of the Secretary-General of the United Nations so that World Radio Day could be endorsed by the General Assembly and celebrated by the whole system. The matter was subsequently treated by UNESCO's General Conference, which adopted resolution contained in the file 36 C/63. World Radio Day was thus unanimously proclaimed by all Member States of UNESCO in November 2011.

text: In December 2012, The General Assembly of the UN endorsed the proclamation of World Radio Day, thereby becoming a Day to be celebrated by all UN agencies, funds and programmes and their partners. File A/RES/67/124. Various radio industry bodies around the world are supporting the initiative by encouraging stations in developed countries to assist those in the developing world.[6] At UNESCO the consultation, proclamation and celebrations were handled by Mirta Lourenco, Chief of the Sector for Media Development.

text: The first World Radio Day[edit]

text: In honour of the first edition of World Radio Day in 2012, Lifeline Energy, FrontlineSMS, SOAS Radio and Empowerhouse hosted a seminar in London. A variety of practitioners, academics and tools providers joined at the School of Oriental and African Studies to explore ways in which radio reaches even the most remote and vulnerable communities.[citation needed] Speakers included Guy Berger (Director for Freedom of Expression and Media Development at UNESCO), Dr Chege Githiora (Chairman of the Centre of African Studies at SOAS), Birgitte Jallov (Empowerhouse/ Panos London), Amy O'Donnell (FrontlineSMS:Radio), Carlos Chirinos (SOAS Radio), and Linje Manyozo (LSE). The panel was moderated by Lucy Durán (SOAS, BBC Radio 3, Human Planet).[citation needed] At the University of Pisa in Italy, a public event was held on 13 February 2012 to commemorate World Radio Day. The event was organized by Italradio and the Faculty of Engineering and Telecommunication. The seminar focused on radio broadcasting being an easy and cheap access to information. Pisa was chosen as the first Italian city to host an intercontinental radio station built by Marconi in the early years of 20th century.[7]

text: In 2012 in Barcelona, Spain, a public event organised by College of Telecommunications Engineers of Catalunya (COETTC) was held on 21 February 2012 to commemorate World Radio Day. The event was organized with the help of the Government of Catalonia. There were panellists from radio stations and personalities from the world of radio broadcasting in attendance. The main event was a panel discussion entitled: "For a more global and competitive radio".[8] In Switzerland, the European Broadcasting Union organised a Digital Radio Week. This was a series of technical events starting on 13 February 2012, with the participation of the main radio standardisation organisations: DRM Consortium, WorldDMB, RadioDNS. There was also a local digital radio transmission in DAB+ demonstrating the democratization of transmission for smaller structures, using CRC mmbTools open software defined radio tools.[9]

text: Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) has started advocacy process on observing the 1st world radio day on 13 February 2012 in collaboration with public service Broadcasting, Commercial broadcasting & Community Broadcasting at local and national level. Through World Radio Day Observation National Committee in Bangladesh has already observed World Radio Day 2012, World Radio Day 2013, World Radio Day 2014 and World Radio Day 2015

text: World Radio Day 2013[edit]

text: World Radio Day 2013 celebrations were extensively covered in news and social media worldwide. UNESCO staff gave 75 media interviews and 130 registered events took place that reached over 150 million listeners worldwide. UNESCO audio interviews with UNESCO Goodwill Ambassadors, Artists for Peace and world known opinion leaders resulted in over 10,000 plays on SoundCloud thematic page in February. "World Radio Day" became a Top-10 global trending topic on Twitter throughout the day. The World Radio Day website received over 90,000 page views in January and February 2013. The promotion of the day counted with several partners.

text: World Radio Day 2014[edit]

text: World Radio Day 2014 had the theme Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Radio proposed by UNESCO. Its sub-themes included:

text:
Sensitizing radio station owners, executives, journalists, and governments to develop gender-related policies and strategies for radio
Eliminating stereotypes and promoting multidimensional portrayal in radio
Building radio skills for youth radio production, with a focus on girls as producers, hosts, reporters
Promoting Safety of women radio journalists

text: The multilingual event website offered several copyright-free audio/video messages for rebroadcasting and diffusion, as well as an interactive map for submitting events related to the celebration of the day. Thematic infographics can be found in English, French and Spanish.

text: World Radio Day 2015[edit]

text: World Radio Day 2015 was held on 13 February 2015 around the theme of Youth and Radio, with the goal of increasing the participation of young people in radio. The sub-themes of the Day were:

text:
Celebrating Radio - showcasing the power of radio as a medium.
By youth, for youth - highlighting the contribution of young people as creators of radio content and improving their participation.
Safety & Security - building awareness of the risks faced by young international freelancers and fixers, especially in humanitarian and disaster zones.

text: Theme for World radio day 2016 is " Radio in times of emergency and disaster". More than 320 events were held in more than 80 countries around the world to mark the Day,[10] with 19 radio stations from around the world coming to UNESCO Headquarters to broadcast live.

text: World Radio Day 2016[edit]

text: World Radio Day 2016 was held on 13 February 2016 around the theme of Radio in Times of Emergency and Disaster, with the goal of building partnerships with the humanitarian and emergency sector, as well as the community at large. The sub-themes of the Day were:

text:
1. Freedom of expression and journalists’ safety should be disaster-proof.
2. Radio empowers survivors and vulnerable people, whose right to privacy is to be respected.
3. Radio has social impact and provides access to information. People’s right to information should be protected.
4. Radio saves lives.
5. The immediate accessibility of radio frequencies is essential to saving lives. These frequencies should be protected in times of emergency.

text: More than 320 events were held in more than 80 countries around the world to mark the Day,[11] with 19 radio stations from around the world coming to UNESCO Headquarters to broadcast live.

text: World Radio Day 2017[edit]

text: World Radio Day 2017 was held on 13 February 2017 around the theme of "Radio is You", with the goal of celebrating how audiences interact with Radio. The theme was designed to encourage radio stations to be the best they can, by having audience engagement policies, ethical committees, public editors, self review programmes and by ensuring their community radio networks were strong. A record number of countries, took part in World Radio Day 2017 with more than 500 events worldwide.

text:
The theme "Radio is You” was chosen because radio is everything it is because of its listeners. The theme puts the spotlight on audiences, ensuring their views and diversity are represented on the airwaves.
The theme is a chance to look at all of the different ways that radio engages audiences, not only on-air but through “listening to listeners” in the planning and policy of radio.

text: World Radio Day 2018[edit]

text: World Radio Day 2018 will be held on 13 February 2018 around the theme of "Radio and Sports". As we look forward to a year of momentous sporting events that have the ability to unite the hearts and minds of people everywhere. World Radio Day 2018 will celebrate the traditional sports that connect us to our cultural heritage, the grassroots sports that anchor us within our communities, and the inspiring stories that challenge gender stereotypes and provide positive role models for young people around the world. The theme for 2018 is all about the alliance of sport and radio as a force for civic participation and development as well as for celebrating humanity in its diversity. World Radio day 2018 will celebrate radio's critical function in shaping this alliance, by providing a platform for radio stations, and listeners alike, to construct their programs and conversations around Radio and Sports. The sub-themes are:

text:
Radio and Sports build and unite communities
Radio and Sports inspire participation and inclusion
Radio fosters goodwill and inspires humanity

how radio impacts on our lives

text: International Radio Committee[edit]

text: This Committee was born in 2012 after the proclamation of the UNESCO´s World Radio Day. The idea came from the president of the Spanish Radio Academy, Jorge Alvarez. This Committee is formed by the most important radio broadcast organisations: ITU-International Telecommunication Union, Spanish Radio Academy, IAB-International Association of Broadcasting, ABU-Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union, ASBU-Arab States Broadcasting Union, EBU/UER-European Broadcasting Union, AER-Association of European Radios, AMARC-World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters, AIBD-Asia Pacific Institute for Broadcasting Development, BNNRC-Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication, URTI-International Radio and Television Union and AUB/UAR-The African Union of Broadcasting. The Founding Act was signed on March 12, 2012.

text: Radio stations around the world are invited to promote the official interactive platform wrd13.com of the international WRD Committee by proposing to their listeners to deposit audio messages on it, in any language, which they will be able to download for broadcasting all day long on February 13.

text: Official website : http://www.academiadelaradio.es/wrd/members.html and http://wrd13.com


document_title: Chevrolet Bolt

question_text: the bolt ev uses what kind of motor to drive

text: Chevrolet Bolt

text: History[edit]

text: Development[edit]

text: GM Korea began developing the Bolt in 2012 with a team of 180 people,[12] and with its initial concept debuting at the 2015 North American International Auto Show.[13]

text: As of June 2015[update], General Motors had tested more than 50 Bolt prototypes hand-built at the General Motors Proving Grounds in Milford, Michigan. The cars were tested at the proving grounds and overseas locations for ride and handling dynamics, cabin comfort, quietness, charging capability, and energy efficiency.[14]

text: Alan Batey, head of General Motors North America, announced in February 2015 that the Bolt EV was headed for production, and would be available in all 50 states.[15] GM also has plans to sell the Bolt in select global markets.[16]

text: In January 2016, at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, the production version of the Chevrolet Bolt was unveiled. At the show, during GM CEO Mary Barra's keynote, Chevrolet confirmed an estimated range of 200 mi (320 km) or more, around US$30,000 price after government incentives, and stated it would be available in late 2016.[17] Barra projected in February 2016 that the European version, marketed as the Opel Ampera-e, would enter production in 2017.[6]

text: In March 2016, GM released photos and a short pre-production video of the Bolt at the company's Orion Assembly plant outside Detroit, testing manufacturing and tooling.[18]

text: Profitability[edit]

text: An unnamed source cited by Bloomberg News estimates that General Motors is expected to take a loss of between US$8,000 and US$9,000 per Bolt sold. A GM spokesman first declined to comment on the expected profitability.[19] Opel refuted that in December 2016 and states that GM has battery cell costs of $130/kWh, and industry is not yet optimized for mass production.[20]

text: Production[edit]

text: Final assembly takes place at GM's Orion Assembly plant in Orion Township, Michigan,[21] which received a US$160 million upgrade for Bolt production.[16] Manufacture of the battery, motor, and drive unit started in August 2016 at LG, Incheon, South Korea.[22]

text: The car is designed for flexible production by having some of the battery in the same position as the fuel tank in internal combustion engine-powered cars, and is made on the same assembly line as the Chevrolet Sonic[23][24] at a combined rate of 90,000 per year.[25]

text: Analysts expected Bolt production at 22,000 per year, and Ampera-e at a few thousand.[26] Production may increase to 30,000 to 50,000 per year according to demand.[27] Initial regular production had begun by early November 2016[5] at a rate of 9 per hour, gradually increasing to 30/hour.[28] Retail deliveries began in California in December 2016.[8][needs update]

text: Regular production was expected to begin in October 2016 at 25,000-30,000 the first year.[29][30]

text: Design[edit]

text: The Bolt was designed from 2012 by a team of 180 people in GM's Korea[12] studio (formerly Daewoo Korea), as B-segment size[31] on its own platform, and does not share elements with the GM Gamma platform cars Chevrolet Sonic/Spark/Opel Corsa.[32][33]

text: The EPA classifies the Bolt as "small station wagon", with less than 130 cu ft of interior volume.[1][34] GM refers to the Bolt as a crossover.[35] The passenger volume is 94 cu ft (2,700 L), and cargo space is 17 cu ft (480 L)[36] (381 liter).[37]

text: The Bolt's doors, tailgate, and hood are aluminum.[31] The driver can adjust the level of regenerative braking as the accelerator pedal is lifted.[38] GM plans for "Over-the-air software updates" during 2017.[39] The front seats are asymmetrical to maximize cabin volume while accommodating airbags.[40]

text: Specifications[edit]

text: Battery[edit]

text: The Bolt's battery uses "nickel-rich lithium-ion" chemistry, allowing the cells to run at higher temperatures than those in GM's previous electric vehicles, allowing a simpler[citation needed] and cheaper[citation needed] liquid cooling system for the 60 kWh (220 MJ) battery pack. The battery pack is a stressed member and weighs 960 lb (440 kg).[41] It accounts for 23% of the car's value,[36] and is composed of 288 flat "landscape" format cells (similar in shape to cells used in other GM products, but contrasting the cylindrical 18650 and 21-70 cells used by Tesla). Cells are bundled into groups of three connected in parallel, and 96 groups connected in series compose the pack.[42] The battery is rated at 160 kW power to avoid limiting the 150 kW/340 Nm motor. GM offers a battery warranty of 8 years / 100,000 miles (160,000 km), and has no plans for other battery sizes. [20]

text: In October 2015, General Motors said they will purchase the Bolt's battery cells at a price of $145 per kilowatt hour from LG Chem, representing a minimum of $8,700 in revenue per car.[43] The cost is reportedly about $100 cheaper per kWh than the price LG was giving other customers at the time.[44][45] GM estimated a cell price of $130/kWh in December 2016.[20]

text: While initially expected to share its lithium-ion battery technology with the second generation Chevrolet Volt,[15][46] the production version of the Bolt uses batteries with a different chemistry more suited to the different charge cycles of a long-range electric vehicle, compared to the more frequent charging/discharging of hybrids and short-range EVs.[47]

text: Drivetrain[edit]

text: Other specifications include a 200 hp (150 kW) and 266 lb⋅ft (361 N⋅m) Interior Permanent Magnet electric motor, acceleration from 0–30 mph (0–48 km/h) in 2.9 seconds and 0–60 mph (0–97 km/h) in less than 7 seconds, and a top speed of 91 mph (146 km/h). The electric motor is integrated with a single-speed transmission and differential, to form a single modular drive unit that connects directly to the front axles. The single-speed transmission has a final drive ratio of 7.05:1.[48][49][better source needed][50]

text: Body and Chassis[edit]

text: The Bolt EV is tall hatchback design, with a gross vehicle weight of 3,580 pounds (1,625 kg).[51] Despite its overall height of nearly 63 inches (1.6 meters), the center of gravity is under 21 inches (53 cm) above the ground, yielding surprisingly stable handling during cornering. The low center of gravity is due to under-floor mounting of the battery pack, following the lead of Tesla's Model S.

text: Bolt uses the now-common kammback/hatchback low-drag body design, with sweeping curves leading to an abrupt back end. It was initially reported to have a drag coefficient of Cd=0.32[31] but GM says the final production vehicle has Cd=0.308.[52]

text: Range and efficiency[edit]

text: Under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) five-cycle test methodology, the Bolt fuel economy is rated at 119 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent (mpg-e) (2.0 L/100 km) for combined driving, 128 mpg-e (1.8 L/100 km) in city and 110 mpg-e (2.1 L/100 km) in highway.[1] Charging time is rated at 9.3 hours on a Level 2 fast charger.[53]

text: The Bolt EV has a combined EPA-rated range of 238 mi (383 km).[1] For city driving, the EPA rated the Bolt range at 255 mi (410 km), and due to its relative high drag coefficient, its range for highway driving is 217 mi (349 km).[56] One Bolt owner was able to drive from McHenry, Maryland in the western part of the state to Ocean City, Maryland, a distance of 313 mi (504 km), on a single charge.[57]

text: The Ampera-e has a certified range of 320 mi (520 km) under the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) test cycle with a full battery, and achieved a range of 240 mi (380 km) under the more strict Worldwide harmonized Light vehicles Test Procedures (WLTP).[2] Opel expected the Ampera-e to achieve a NEDC range of about 500 km (310 mi).[58]

text: Until July 2017, the Bolt is the only plug-in electric car with a manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP) of less than US$50,000 capable of delivering an EPA-rated range of over 200 mi (320 km).[55] All other electric cars below that price threshold and available for retail sales, except the Tesla Model 3, can only go 60 to 125 mi (97 to 201 km) on a single charge.[53][55] The Bolt also surpasses the range of Tesla's entry-level Model S 60 sedan, which has an EPA-rated range of 210 mi (340 km).[59] Among all-electric series production cars sold in the U.S., in addition to the Model 3, only the Tesla Model S sedan and Model X crossover can go more than 200 mi (320 km).[53]

text: The Renault Zoe with the optional 41 kWh battery has a range of up 400 km (250 mi) under the NEDC cycle, but Renault clarified the upgraded battery delivers a real-world range of 300 km (190 mi) in urban or suburban areas.[60][61]

text: Charging[edit]

text: All models of Bolt support standard SAE EV charging plugs, at Level 1 or Level 2 (AC). A factory option supports Level 3 (rapid DC) charging with the SAE Combo DC system. A portable Level 1 charging adapter is supplied with each Bolt, stowed in a special compartment under the hatchback floor.

text: Level 1 (110VAC) charging supplies roughly 1 kW[37] and adds 3–5 miles (5–8 km) of range per hour of charging. Level 2 (240VAC) charging supplies up to 7.2 kW[37] and adds 20–30 miles (30–50 km) of range per hour of charging. Level 3 charging with the factory-option 80 kW SAE Combo DC fast charging system can add 90 mi (140 km) of range in 30 minutes, or fill the battery to 80% capacity in an hour. The Bolt user manual suggests fast-charging to only 80% charge to ensure consistent 50 kW charging.[24][62]

text: Tires[edit]

text: The Bolt EV is delivered with self-sealing tires whose interior surfaces are coated with a sticky compound to automatically seal small leaks and punctures in the tread area.[63] There is no spare tire, nor is there (officially) a place to store one.[64] The car is equipped with a digital Tire Pressure Monitoring System to warn the driver if a tire is leaking, and a portable inflator kit is available as a standard part. Under the rear hatchback cargo deck, there is a space that can be used to store an undersized spare, and some owners carry a compatible Chevy Cruze spare tire there.[65]

text: Test drives[edit]

text: The EPA-rated range of 238 mi (383 km) was confirmed by automotive reporters driving a preproduction Bolt with a 60-kWh battery. Driven under different driving modes with the air conditioning on, the trip between Monterey and Santa Barbara was completed with an energy consumption of 50.1 kWh, representing an average efficiency of 4.8 miles per kWh (12,9 kWh/100 km). A total of 237.8 mi (382.7 km) were driven, with the Bolt's display showing 34 mi (55 km) of range remaining.[66] Several other journalists conducted a preproduction Bolt test drive on the same route, and all reported similar results regarding the Bolt EPA-estimated range.[59][67][68][69][70]

text: As part of its debut at the 2016 Paris Motor Show, Opel reported driving an Ampera-e without recharging from Piccadilly Circus in London to Porte de Versailles in Paris, the venue of the exhibition. The rebadged Bolt traveled 417 km (259 mi) with 80 km (50 mi) of range remaining.[58][71]

text: Markets and sales[edit]

text: United States[edit]

text: Ordering began in California and Oregon in mid-October 2016.[72] The first three Bolts were delivered in the San Francisco Bay Area on December 13, 2016.[8] Availability was rolled out gradually across the United States, and by August 2017 the car was available nationwide.[8] Demand profile did not exactly match predictions, leading GM to slow production in July 2017.[73] However, in the last months of 2017 Bolt demand rose rapidly: by October, it outsold any other model of electric car, including those from Tesla,[74] and sales rose month-on-month through the end of 2017. Chevy sold 23,297 Bolt EVs in the U.S. in 2017.[75]

text: Canada[edit]

text: The Bolt has been available in Canada since the beginning of 2017. 2,122 Bolt EVs were sold in Canada in 2017.[76]

text: Norway[edit]

text: The Ampera-e launch in the Norwegian market was scheduled for April 2017, when 13 were registered.[77][78] Deliveries to retail customers[24] began on May 17, 2017.[79] Over 4,000 cars were ordered in Norway, with some to be delivered in 2018.[7]

text: South Korea[edit]

text: In South Korea, General Motors opened the order books on March 18, 2017, and all 400 units of the first allotment were sold out in 2 hours.[80]

text: Awards and recognition[edit]

text: The Bolt won the 2017 Motor Trend Car of the Year award,[81] the 2017 North American Car of the Year,[82][83] the 2017 AutoGuide.com Reader's Choice Green Car of the Year,[84] and the Green Car Reports Best Car To Buy 2017.[85] The Bolt also ended up Car & Driver's '10 Best Cars' list for 2017 [86][better source needed] The Chevy Bolt also won the 2017 Green Car of the Year awarded by the Green Car Journal.[87] It was also named by Time Magazine among its list of 25 Best Inventions of 2016,[88] and among Popular Science's 10 Greatest Automotive Innovations of 2016.[89] The Bolt EV beat out the Cadillac CT6 and Jaguar XE to win the Detroit Free Press award for Car of the Year.[90][better source needed] Automobile magazine included the Bolt in its 2017 All Star list.[91]

text: Pre-production name confusion[edit]

text: In 2015, Chevrolet acknowledged confusion between two vehicles with a similar-sounding names; Bolt and Volt.[92]

text: Chevrolet's marketing chief, Tim Mahoney, subsequently announced GM would keep the Bolt name.[93]

text: Autoblog projected similar confusion among European customers where the Opel Ampera-e (the Bolt variant) is just one letter off from the Opel Ampera, the previous-generation Chevrolet Volt sold in Europe — suggesting the names could confuse customers who think the new all-electric hatchback is closely related to the old plug-in hybrid hatchback.[94]

text: Tata Motors has had a car named the Bolt on the market since 2014, and has registered the trademark in India and other countries.[95]

text: If Chevrolet wants to sell the Bolt in India it would need to call it a different name due to the trademark Tata owns for its car or it license the name from Tata.[citation needed]


document_title: Nuclear power in the United States

question_text: when was nuclear energy first commercially used in the united states

question_tokens: when was nuclear energy first commercially used in the united states

text: Nuclear power in the United States

text: History[edit]

text: Emergence[edit]

text: Unexpectedly high costs in the Second World War nuclear weapons program created "...pressure on federal officials to develop a civilian nuclear power industry that could help justify the government's considerable expenditures".[14] Research into the peaceful uses of nuclear materials began in the United States under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission, created by the United States Atomic Energy Act of 1946. Medical scientists were interested in the effect of radiation upon the fast-growing cells of cancer, and materials were given to them, while the military services led research into other peaceful uses.

text: The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 encouraged private corporations to build nuclear reactors and a significant learning phase followed with many early partial core meltdowns and accidents at experimental reactors and research facilities.[15] This led to the introduction of the Price-Anderson Act in 1957, which was "...an implicit admission that nuclear power provided risks that producers were unwilling to assume without federal backing."[15] The Price-Anderson Act "...shields nuclear utilities, vendors and suppliers against liability claims in the event of a catastrophic accident by imposing an upper limit on private sector liability." Without such protection, private companies were unwilling to become involved. No other technology in the history of American industry has enjoyed such continuing blanket protection.[14]

text: Power reactor research[edit]

text: Argonne National Laboratory was assigned by the United States Atomic Energy Commission the lead role in developing commercial nuclear energy beginning in the 1940s. Between then and the turn of the 21st century, Argonne designed, built, and operated fourteen reactors[16] at its site southwest of Chicago, and another fourteen reactors[16] at the National Reactors Testing Station in Idaho.[17] These reactors included initial experiments and test reactors that were the progenitors of today’s pressurized water reactors (including naval reactors), boiling water reactors, heavy water reactors, graphite-moderated reactors, and liquid-metal cooled fast reactors, one of which[18] was the first reactor in the world to generate electricity. Argonne and a number of other AEC contractors built a total of 52 reactors at the National Reactor Testing Station. Two were never operated; except for the Neutron Radiography Facility, all the other reactors were shut down by 2000.

text: In the early afternoon of December 20, 1951, Argonne director Walter Zinn and fifteen other Argonne staff members witnessed a row of four light bulbs light up in a nondescript brick building in the eastern Idaho desert. Electricity from a generator connected to Experimental Breeder Reactor I (EBR-I) flowed through them. This was the first time that a usable amount of electrical power had ever been generated from nuclear fission. Only days afterward, the reactor produced all the electricity needed for the entire EBR complex.[19] One ton of natural uranium can produce more than 40 gigawatt-hours of electricity — this is equivalent to burning 16,000 tons of coal or 80,000 barrels of oil.[20] More central to EBR-I’s purpose than just generating electricity, however, was its role in proving that a reactor could create more nuclear fuel as a byproduct than it consumed during operation. In 1953, tests verified that this was the case.[21]

text: The US Navy took the lead, seeing the opportunity to have ships that could steam around the world at high speeds without refueling as being necessary for several decades, and the possibility of turning submarines into true full-time underwater vehicles. So, the Navy sent their "man in Engineering", then Captain Hyman Rickover, well known for his great technical talents in electrical engineering and propulsion systems in addition to his skill in project management, to the AEC to start the Naval Reactors project. Rickover's work with the AEC led to the development of the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), the first naval model of which was installed in the submarine USS Nautilus. This made the boat capable of operating under water full-time – demonstrating this ability by reaching the North Pole and surfacing through the Polar ice cap.

text: Start of commercial nuclear power[edit]

text: From the successful naval reactor program, plans were quickly developed for the use of reactors to generate steam to drive turbines turning generators. In April 1957, the SM-1 Nuclear Reactor in Fort Belvoir, Virginia was the first atomic power generator to go online and produce electrical energy to the U.S. power grid. On May 26, 1958 the first commercial nuclear power plant in the United States, Shippingport Atomic Power Station, was opened by President Dwight D. Eisenhower as part of his Atoms for Peace program. As nuclear power continued to grow throughout the 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission anticipated that more than 1,000 reactors would be operating in the United States by 2000.[22] As the industry continued to expand, the Atomic Energy Commission's development and regulatory functions were separated in 1974; the Department of Energy absorbed research and development, while the regulatory branch was spun off and turned into an independent commission known as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC or simply NRC).

text: Opposition to nuclear power[edit]

text: There has been considerable opposition to the use of nuclear power in the U.S. The first U.S. reactor to face public opposition was Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station in 1957. It was built approximately 30 miles from Detroit and there was opposition from the United Auto Workers Union.[23] Pacific Gas & Electric planned to build the first commercially viable nuclear power plant in the USA at Bodega Bay, north of San Francisco. The proposal was controversial and conflict with local citizens began in 1958.[24] The conflict ended in 1964, with the forced abandonment of plans for the power plant. Historian Thomas Wellock traces the birth of the anti-nuclear movement to the controversy over Bodega Bay.[24] Attempts to build a nuclear power plant in Malibu were similar to those at Bodega Bay and were also abandoned.[24]

text: Nuclear accidents continued into the 1960s with a small test reactor exploding at the Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One in Idaho Falls in January 1961 and a partial meltdown at the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station in Michigan in 1966.[25] In his 1963 book Change, Hope and the Bomb, David Lilienthal criticized nuclear developments, particularly the nuclear industry's failure to address the nuclear waste question.[26] J. Samuel Walker, in his book Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective, explains that the growth of the nuclear industry in the U.S. occurred in the 1970s as the environmental movement was being formed. Environmentalists saw the advantages of nuclear power in reducing air pollution, but were critical of nuclear technology on other grounds.[27] They were concerned about nuclear accidents, nuclear proliferation, high cost of nuclear power plants, nuclear terrorism and radioactive waste disposal.[28]

text: There were many anti-nuclear protests in the United States which captured national public attention during the 1970s and 1980s. These included the well-known Clamshell Alliance protests at Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant and the Abalone Alliance protests at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, where thousands of protesters were arrested. Other large protests followed the 1979 Three Mile Island accident.[29]

text: In New York City on September 23, 1979, almost 200,000 people attended a protest against nuclear power.[30]  Anti-nuclear power protests preceded the shutdown of the Shoreham, Yankee Rowe, Rancho Seco, Maine Yankee, and about a dozen other nuclear power plants.[31]

text: Over-commitment and cancellations[edit]

text: By the mid-1970s it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as quickly as once believed. Cost overruns were sometimes a factor of ten above original industry estimates, and became a major problem. For the 75 nuclear power reactors built from 1966 to 1977, cost overruns averaged 207 percent. Opposition and problems were galvanized by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.[32]

text: Over-commitment to nuclear power brought about the financial collapse of the Washington Public Power Supply System, a public agency which undertook to build five large nuclear power plants in the 1970s. By 1983, cost overruns and delays, along with a slowing of electricity demand growth, led to cancellation of two WPPSS plants and a construction halt on two others. Moreover, WPPSS defaulted on $2.25 billion of municipal bonds, which is one of the largest municipal bond defaults in U.S. history. The court case that followed took nearly a decade to resolve.[33][34][35]

text: Eventually, more than 120 reactor orders were cancelled,[36] and the construction of new reactors ground to a halt. Al Gore has commented on the historical record and reliability of nuclear power in the United States:

text: Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable.[37]

text: Amory Lovins has also commented on the historical record of nuclear power in the United States:

text: Of all 132 U.S. nuclear plants built (52% of the 253 originally ordered), 21% were permanently and prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems, while another 27% have completely failed for a year or more at least once. The surviving U.S. nuclear plants produce ~90% of their full-time full-load potential, but even they are not fully dependable. Even reliably operating nuclear plants must shut down, on average, for 39 days every 17 months for refueling and maintenance, and unexpected failures do occur too.[38]

text: A cover story in the February 11, 1985, issue of Forbes magazine commented on the overall management of the nuclear power program in the United States:

text: The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale … only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible.[39]

text: Three Mile Island and after[edit]

text:
The NRC reported "(...the Three Mile Island accident...) was the most serious in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history, even though it led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community."[40]
The World Nuclear Association reports that "...more than a dozen major, independent studies have assessed the radiation releases and possible effects on the people and the environment around TMI since the 1979 accident at TMI-2. The most recent was a 13-year study on 32,000 people. None has found any adverse health effects such as cancers which might be linked to the accident."[41] Other nuclear power incidents within the US (defined as safety-related events in civil nuclear power facilities between INES Levels 1 and 3[42] include those at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant, which was the source of two of the top five highest conditional core damage frequency nuclear incidents in the United States since 1979, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.[43]

text: Despite the concerns which arose among the public after the Three Mile Island incident, the accident highlights the success of the reactor's safety systems. The radioactivity released as a result of the accident was almost entirely confined within the reinforced concrete containment structure. These containment structures, found at all nuclear power plants, were designed to successfully trap radioactive material in the event of a melt down or accident. At Three Mile Island, the containment structures operated exactly as it was designed to do, emerging successful in containing any radioactive energy. The low levels of radioactivity released post incident is considered harmless, resulting in zero injuries and deaths of residents living in proximity to the plant.

text: Despite many technical studies which asserted that the probability of a severe nuclear accident was low, numerous surveys showed that the public remained "very deeply distrustful and uneasy about nuclear power".[44] Some commentators have suggested that the public's consistently negative ratings of nuclear power are reflective of the industry's unique connection with nuclear weapons:[45]

text: [One] reason why nuclear power is seen differently to other technologies lies in its parentage and birth. Nuclear energy was conceived in secrecy, born of war, and first revealed to the world in horror. No matter how many proponents try to separate the peaceful atom from the weapon's atom, the connection is firmly embedded in the mind of the public.[45]

text: Several US nuclear power plants closed well before their design lifetimes, due to successful campaigns by anti-nuclear activist groups.[46] These include Rancho Seco in 1989 in California and Trojan in 1992 in Oregon. Humboldt Bay in California closed in 1976, 13 years after geologists discovered it was built on a fault (the Little Salmon Fault). Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant was completed but never operated commercially as an authorized Emergency Evacuation Plan could not be agreed on due the political climate after the Three Mile Island accident and Chernobyl disaster. The last permanent closure of a US nuclear power plant was in 1997.[47]

text: US nuclear reactors were originally licensed to operate for 40-year periods. In the 1980s, the NRC determined that there were no technical issues that would preclude longer service.[48] Over half of US nuclear reactors are over 30 years old and almost all are over twenty years old.[49] As of  2011[update], more than 60 reactors have received 20-year extensions to their licensed lifetimes.[50] The average capacity factor for all US reactors has improved from below 60% in the 1970s and 1980s, to 92% in 2007,[51][52]

text: After the Three Mile Island accident, NRC-issued reactor construction permits, which had averaged more than 12 per year from 1967 through 1978, came to an abrupt halt; no permits were issued between 1979 and 2012 (in 2012, four planned new reactors received construction permits). Many permitted reactors were never built, or the projects were abandoned. Those that were completed after Three Mile island experienced a much longer time lag from construction permit to starting of operations. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself described its regulatory oversight of the long-delayed Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant as "a paradigm of fragmented and uncoordinated government decision making," and "a system strangling itself and the economy in red tape."[53] The number of operating power reactors in the US peaked at 112 in 1991, far fewer than the 177 that received construction permits. By 1998 the number of working reactors declined to 104, where it remains as of 2013. The loss of electrical generation from the eight fewer reactors since 1991 has been offset by power uprates of generating capacity at existing reactors.[54]

text:
Despite the problems following Three Mile Island, output of nuclear-generated electricity in the US grew steadily, more than tripling over the next three decades: from 255 billion kilowatt-hours in 1979 (the year of the Three Mile Island accident), to 806 billion kilowatt-hours in 2007.[55]
Part of the increase was due to the greater number of operating reactors, which increased by 51%: from 69 reactors in 1979, to 104 in 2007. Another cause was a large increase in the capacity factor over that period. In 1978, nuclear power plants generated electricity at only 64% of their rated output capacity. Performance suffered even further during and after Three Mile Island, as a series of new safety regulations from 1979 through the mid-1980s forced operators to repeatedly shut down reactors for required retrofits.[56] It was not until 1990 that the average capacity factor of US nuclear plants returned to the level of 1978. The capacity factor continued to rise, until 2001. Since 2001, US nuclear power plants have consistently delivered electric power at about 90% of their rated capacity.[57] In 2016, the number of power plants was at 100 with 4 under construction.

text: Effects of Fukushima[edit]

text: Following the 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has announced it will launch a comprehensive safety review of the 104 nuclear power reactors across the United States, at the request of President Obama. A total of 45 groups and individuals had formally asked the NRC to suspend all licensing and other activities at 21 proposed nuclear reactor projects in 15 states until the NRC had completed a thorough post-Fukushima reactor crisis examination. The petitioners also asked the NRC to supplement its own investigation by establishing an independent commission comparable to that set up in the wake of the serious, though less severe, 1979 Three Mile Island accident.[58][59]

text: An industry observer noted that post-Fukushima costs were likely to go up for both current and new nuclear power plants, due to increased requirements for on-site spent fuel management and elevated design basis threats.[60][61] License extensions for existing reactors will face additional scrutiny, with outcomes depending on plants meeting new requirements, and some extensions already granted for more than 60 of the 100 operating U.S. reactors could be revisited. On-site storage, consolidated long-term storage, and geological disposal of spent fuel is "likely to be reevaluated in a new light because of the Fukushima storage pool experience".[60] Mark Cooper suggested that the cost of nuclear power, which already had risen sharply in 2010 and 2011, could "climb another 50 percent due to tighter safety oversight and regulatory delays in the wake of the reactor calamity in Japan".[62]

text: In 2011, London-based bank HSBC said: "With Three Mile Island and Fukushima as a backdrop, the US public may find it difficult to support major nuclear new build and we expect that no new plant extensions will be granted either. Thus we expect the clean energy standard under discussion in US legislative chambers will see a far greater emphasis on gas and renewables plus efficiency".[63]

text: The Obama administration "continues to support the expansion of nuclear power in the United States, despite the crisis in Japan".[64]

text: Competitiveness problems[edit]

text: In May 2015, a senior vice president of General Atomics stated that the U.S. nuclear industry was struggling due low U.S. fossil fuel prices, partly due to the rapid development of shale gas, and high financing costs for nuclear plants.[65]

text: In July 2016 Toshiba withdrew the U.S. design certification renewal for its Advanced Boiling Water Reactor because "it has become increasingly clear that energy price declines in the US prevent Toshiba from expecting additional opportunities for ABWR construction projects".[66]

text: In 2016, Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo directed the New York Public Service Commission to consider ratepayer-financed subsidies similar to those for renewable sources to keep nuclear power stations profitable in the competition against natural gas.[67][68]

text: In March 2018, FirstEnergy announced plans to deactivate the Beaver Valley, Davis-Besse, and Perry nuclear power plants, which are in the Ohio and Pennsylvania deregulated electricity market, for economic reasons during the next three years.[69]

text: Westinghouse Chapter 11 bankruptcy[edit]

text: On March 29, 2017, parent company Toshiba placed Westinghouse Electric Company in Chapter 11 bankruptcy because of $9 billion of losses from its nuclear reactor construction projects. The projects responsible for this loss are mostly the construction of four AP1000 reactors at Vogtle in Georgia and V. C. Summer in South Carolina.[70] The U.S. government had given $8.3 billion of loan guarantees on the financing of the four nuclear reactors being built in the U.S., and it is expected a way forward to completing the plants can be agreed.[71] Peter A. Bradford, former Nuclear Regulatory Commission member, commented "They placed a big bet on this hallucination of a nuclear renaissance".[72]

text: The other U.S. new nuclear supplier, General Electric, had already scaled back its nuclear operations as it was concerned about the economic viability of new nuclear.[73]

text: Nuclear power plants[edit]

text:
List of nuclear reactors in the United States [ view/edit ]

Name
Unit
Reactor
Status
Capacity in MW
Construction start
Commercial operation
Closure

Type
Model
Net
Gross

Beaver Valley
1
PWR
WH 3-loop (DRYSUB)
Operational

970

2 July 1976

2
PWR
WH 3-loop (DRYSUB)
Operational

920

14 August 1987

Calvert Cliffs
1
PWR
CE 2-loop (DRYAMB)
Operational

873

1975

2
PWR
CE 2-loop (DRYAMB)
Operational

863

1977

Connecticut Yankee
1

Shut down

582

1968
2004

Ginna
1

Operational

610

1 June 1970

Hope Creek
1

Operational

1,059

20 December 1986

Indian Point
1

Shut down

31 October 1974

2

Operational

1,020

1 August 1974

3

Operational

1,025

30 August 1976

James A. FitzPatrick
1

Operational

838

July 1975

Limerick
1

Operational

1,134

1 February 1986

2

Operational

1,134

8 January 1990

Maine Yankee
1

Shut down

860

28 December 1972[74]
1 August 1997[74]

Millstone
1

Shut down

28 December 1970
21 July 1998

2

Operational

882

26 December 1975

3

Operational

1,155

23 April 1986

Nine Mile Point
1

Operational

621

26 December 1974

2

Operational

1,140

2 July 1987

Oyster Creek
1

Operational

636

23 December 1969

Peach Bottom
1
GCR
Prototype
Shut down

1966
1974

2
BWR
BWR-4 Mk 1
Operational

1,382

5 July 1974

3
BWR
BWR-4 Mk 1
Operational

1,382

23 December 1974

Pilgrim
1

Operational

685

9 December 1972

Salem
1

Operational

1,174

30 June 1977

2

Operational

1,130

31 October 1981

Saxton
1

Shut down

November 1961
May 1972

Seabrook Station
1

Operational

1,194

15 March 1990

Shippingport
1

Shut down

60

26 May 1958
December 1989

Shoreham
1

Shut down

820

1 August 1986
1 May 1989

Susquehanna
1

Operational

1,350

12 November 1982

2

Operational

1,350

27 June 1984

Three Mile Island
1

Operational

852

2 September 1974

2

Shut down

906

30 December 1978
1979

Vermont Yankee
1

Shut down

514[75]

30 November 1972
29 December 2014[76]

Yankee Rowe
1

Shut down

185

1960
26 February 1992

Alvin W. Vogtle
1

Operational

1,215

1 June 1987

2

Operational

1,215

20 May 1989

3

AP1000
Under construction

1,250

(June 2019)

4

AP1000
Under construction

1,250

(2020)

Bellefonte
1

Unfinished

1,100

2

Unfinished

1,100

Browns Ferry
1

Operational

1,065

20 December 1973

2

Operational

1,113

2 August 1974

3

Operational

1,113

18 August 1976

Brunswick
1

Operational

938

18 March 1977[77]

2

Operational

920

3 November 1975[78]

Parr
1
PHWR
CVTR
Shut down

17

18 December 1963
10 January 1967

Catawba
1

Operational

1,129

29 June 1985

2

Operational

1,129

19 August 1986

Crystal River 3
1

Shut down

860

13 March 1977
5 February 2013

Edwin I. Hatch
1

Operational

924

31 December 1975

2

Operational

924

5 September 1979

H. B. Robinson
1

Operational

735

7 March 1971

Joseph M. Farley
1

Operational

900

1 December 1977

2

Operational

920

30 July 1981

McGuire
1

Operational

1,100

1 December 1981

2

Operational

1,100

1 March 1984

North Anna
1

Operational

903

6 June 1978

2

Operational

972

14 December 1980

Oconee
1

Operational

846

15 July 1973

2

Operational

846

9 September 1974

3

Operational

846

16 December 1974

Sequoyah
1

Operational

1,148

1 July 1981

2

Operational

1,126

1 June 1982

Shearon Harris
1

Operational

900

2 May 1987

St. Lucie
1

Operational

1,002

1 March 1976

2

Operational

1,002

10 June 1983

Surry
1

Operational

799

22 December 1972

2

Operational

799

1 May 1973

Turkey Point
3

Operational

693

14 December 1972

4

Operational

693

7 September 1973

3
PWR
AP1000
Planned
1000
1135

4
PWR
AP1000
Planned
1000
1135

Virgil C. Summer
1

Operational

1,000

1 January 1984

Watts Bar
1

Operational

1,121

27 May 1996

2

Operational

1,165

4 June 2016

Big Rock Point[79]
1
BWR

Shut down

67
1 May 1960
29 March 1963
29 August 1997

Byron
1

Operational

1,168

16 September 1985

2

Operational

1,168

2 August 1987

Braidwood
1[80]
PWR
WH 4LP (DRYAMB)
Operational
1,194
1,270
1 August 1975
29 July 1988

2[81]

Operational

1,121

17 October 1988

Clinton
1

Operational

1,043

24 April 1987

Davis-Besse
1

Operational

965

31 July 1978

Donald C. Cook
1

Operational

1,020

27 August 1975

2

Operational

1,090

1 July 1978

Dresden
1

Shut down

210

1960
1978

2

Operational

867

9 June 1970

3

Operational

867

16 November 1971

Duane Arnold
1

Operational

581

20 February 1975

Elk River
1

Shut down

22

1 July 1964
1 February 1968

Enrico Fermi
1
FBR
Prototype
Shut down

69

1957
22 September 1972

2
BWR
BWR-4 (Mark 1)
Operational

1,098

23 January 1988

Kewaunee
1

Shut down

556

16 June 1974
7 May 2013

La Crosse
1

Shut down

50

7 November 1969
30 April 1987

LaSalle County
1

Operational

1,200

1 January 1984

2

Operational

1,200

19 October 1984

Marble Hill
1

Unfinished

Monticello
1

Operational

610

30 June 1971

Palisades
1

Operational

800

31 December 1971

Perry
1

Operational

1,231

18 November 1987

Piqua
1

Shut down

12.5

1963
1966

Point Beach
1

Operational

510

21 December 1970

2

Operational

516

1 October 1972

Prairie Island
1

Operational

548

16 December 1973

2

Operational

548

21 December 1974

Quad Cities
1

Operational

912

18 February 1973

2

Operational

912

10 March 1973

Zion
1

Shut down

1,040

June 1973
13 February 1998

2

Shut down

1,040

December 1973
13 February 1998

Arkansas Nuclear One
1

Operational

846

21 May 1974

2

Operational

930

1 September 1978

Callaway
1

Operational

1,300

19 December 1984

Columbia
1

Operational

1,170

13 December 1984

Comanche Peak
1

Operational

1,084

17 April 1990

2

Operational

1,124

6 April 1993

Cooper
1

Operational

770

1 July 1974

Diablo Canyon
1

Operational

1,122

7 May 1985

2

Operational

1,118

13 March 1986

Fort Calhoun
1

Shut down

476

9 August 1973
24 October 2016

Fort St. Vrain
1

Shut down

330

1 July 1979
29 August 1989

Grand Gulf
1

Operational

1,500

1 July 1985

Hallam
1

Shut down

75

1963
1969

N-Reactor
1

Shut down

1964
December 1986

Humboldt Bay
1

Shut down

63

August 1963
July 1976

Palo Verde
1

Operational

1,447

1986

2

Operational

1,447

1986

3

Operational

1,447

1988

Pathfinder
1

Shut down

59

July 1966
October 1967

Rancho Seco
1

Shut down

913

17 April 1975
23 October 2009

River Bend
1

Operational

978

16 June 1986

San Onofre
1

Shut down
436
456

1 January 1968
30 November 1992

2

Shut down

1,172

8 August 1983
7 June 2013

3

Shut down

1,178

1 April 1984
7 June 2013

Sodium Reactor Experiment
1

Shut down

6.5

12 July 1957
15 February 1964

South Texas
1

Operational

1,250

25 August 1988

2

Operational

1,250

19 June 1989

Trojan
1

Shut down

1,130

20 May 1976
1992

UAMPS
1
PWR
NuScale
Planned
45
50

2
PWR
NuScale
Planned
45
50

3
PWR
NuScale
Planned
45
50

4
PWR
NuScale
Planned
45
50

5
PWR
NuScale
Planned
45
50

6
PWR
NuScale
Planned
45
50

7
PWR
NuScale
Planned
45
50

8
PWR
NuScale
Planned
45
50

9
PWR
NuScale
Planned
45
50

10
PWR
NuScale
Planned
45
50

11
PWR
NuScale
Planned
45
50

12
PWR
NuScale
Planned
45
50

Vallecitos
1

Shut down

October 1957
December 1963

Waterford
1

Operational

1,218

24 September 1985

Wolf Creek
1

Operational

1,250

3 September 1985

tag: table

text: Safety and accidents[edit]

text: Regulation of nuclear power plants in the United States is done by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which divides the nation into 4 administrative divisions.

text: Three Mile Island[edit]

text: On March 28, 1979, equipment failures and operator error contributed to loss of coolant and a partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant in Pennsylvania. The mechanical failures were compounded by the initial failure of plant operators to recognize the situation as a loss-of-coolant accident due to inadequate training and human factors, such as human-computer interaction design oversights relating to ambiguous control room indicators in the power plant's user interface.[82] The scope and complexity of the accident became clear over the course of five days, as employees of Met Ed, Pennsylvania state officials, and members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) tried to understand the problem, communicate the situation to the press and local community, decide whether the accident required an emergency evacuation, and ultimately end the crisis. The NRC's authorization of the release of 40,000 gallons of radioactive waste water directly in the Susquehanna River led to a loss of credibility with the press and community.[82]

text: The Three Mile Island accident inspired Perrow's book Normal Accidents, where a nuclear accident occurs, resulting from an unanticipated interaction of multiple failures in a complex system. TMI was an example of a normal accident because it was "unexpected, incomprehensible, uncontrollable and unavoidable".[83] The World Nuclear Association has stated that cleanup of the damaged nuclear reactor system at TMI-2 took nearly 12 years and cost approximately US $973 million.[84] Benjamin K. Sovacool, in his 2007 preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, estimated that the TMI accident caused a total of $2.4 billion in property damages.[85] The health effects of the Three Mile Island accident are widely, but not universally, agreed to be very low level.[84][86] The accident triggered protests around the world.[87]

text: The 1979 Three Mile Island accident was a pivotal event that led to questions about U.S. nuclear safety.[88] Earlier events had a similar effect, including a 1975 fire at Browns Ferry, the 1976 testimonials of three concerned GE nuclear engineers, the GE Three. In 1981, workers inadvertently reversed pipe restraints at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant reactors, compromising seismic protection systems, which further undermined confidence in nuclear safety. All of these well-publicised events, undermined public support for the U.S. nuclear industry in the 1970s and the 1980s.[88]

text: Other incidents[edit]

text: On March 5, 2002, maintenance workers discovered that corrosion had eaten a football-sized hole into the reactor vessel head of the Davis-Besse plant. Although the corrosion did not lead to an accident, this was considered to be a serious nuclear safety incident.[89][90] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission kept Davis-Besse shut down until March 2004, so that FirstEnergy was able to perform all the necessary maintenance for safe operations. The NRC imposed its largest fine ever—more than $5 million—against FirstEnergy for the actions that led to the corrosion. The company paid an additional $28 million in fines under a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice.[89]

text: In 2013 the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station was permanently retired when premature wear was found in the Steam Generators which had been replaced in 2010–2011.

text: The nuclear industry in the United States has maintained one of the best industrial safety records in the world with respect to all kinds of accidents. For 2008, the industry hit a new low of 0.13 industrial accidents per 200,000 worker-hours.[91] This is improved over 0.24 in 2005, which was still a factor of 14.6 less than the 3.5 number for all manufacturing industries.[92] However, more than a quarter of U.S. nuclear plant operators "have failed to properly tell regulators about equipment defects that could imperil reactor safety", according to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission report.[93]

text: As of February 2009, the NRC requires that the design of new power plants ensures that the reactor containment would remain intact, cooling systems would continue to operate, and spent fuel pools would be protected, in the event of an aircraft crash. This is an issue that has gained attention since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The regulation does not apply to the 100 commercial reactors now operating.[94] However, the containment structures of nuclear power plants are among the strongest structures ever built by mankind; independent studies have shown that existing plants would easily survive the impact of a large commercial jetliner without loss of structural integrity.[95]

text: Recent concerns have been expressed about safety issues affecting a large part of the nuclear fleet of reactors. In 2012, the Union of Concerned Scientists, which tracks ongoing safety issues at operating nuclear plants, found that "leakage of radioactive materials is a pervasive problem at almost 90 percent of all reactors, as are issues that pose a risk of nuclear accidents".[96] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission reports that radioactive tritium has leaked from 48 of the 65 nuclear sites in the United States.[97]

text: Post-Fukushima concerns[edit]

text: Following the Japanese Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, according to Black & Veatch’s annual utility survey that took place after the disaster, of the 700 executives from the US electric utility industry that were surveyed, nuclear safety was the top concern.[98] There are likely to be increased requirements for on-site spent fuel management and elevated design basis threats at nuclear power plants.[60][61] License extensions for existing reactors will face additional scrutiny, with outcomes depending on the degree to which plants can meet new requirements, and some extensions already granted for more than 60 of the 104 operating U.S. reactors could be revisited. On-site storage, consolidated long-term storage, and geological disposal of spent fuel is "likely to be reevaluated in a new light because of the Fukushima storage pool experience".[60] In March 2011, nuclear experts told Congress that spent-fuel pools at US nuclear power plants are too full. They say the entire US spent-fuel policy should be overhauled in light of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents.[99]

text: David Lochbaum, chief nuclear safety officer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, has repeatedly questioned the safety of the Fukushima I Plant's General Electric Mark 1 reactor design, which is used in almost a quarter of the United States' nuclear fleet.[100]

text: About one third of reactors in the US are boiling water reactors, the same technology which was involved in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan. There are also eight nuclear power plants located along the seismically active West coast. Twelve of the American reactors that are of the same vintage as the Fukushima Daiichi plant are in seismically active areas.[101] Earthquake risk is often measured by "Peak Ground Acceleration", or PGA, and the following nuclear power plants have a two percent or greater chance of having PGA over 0.15g in the next 50 years: Diablo Canyon, Calif.; San Onofre, Calif.; Sequoyah, Tenn.; H.B. Robinson, SC.; Watts Bar, Tenn.; Virgil C. Summer, SC.; Vogtle, GA.; Indian Point, NY.; Oconee, SC.; and Seabrook, NH. Most nuclear plants are designed to keep operating up to 0.2g, but can withstand PGA much higher than 0.2.[101]

text:
Nuclear power plant accidents in the U.S. with more than US$140 million in property damage[102][103]

Date
Plant
Location
Description
Cost  (in millions  2006 $)

March 28, 1979
Three Mile Island
Londonderry Township, Pennsylvania
Loss of coolant and partial core meltdown, see Three Mile Island accident and Three Mile Island accident health effects
 US$2,400

March 9, 1985
Browns Ferry
Athens, Alabama
Instrumentation systems malfunction during startup, which led to suspension of operations at all three Units
 US$1,830

April 11, 1986
Pilgrim
Plymouth, Massachusetts
Recurring equipment problems force emergency shutdown of Boston Edison’s plant
 US$1,001

March 31, 1987
Peach Bottom
Delta, Pennsylvania
Units 2 and 3 shutdown due to cooling malfunctions and unexplained equipment problems
 US$400

December 19, 1987
Nine Mile Point
Scriba, New York
Malfunctions force Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation to shut down Unit 1
 US$150

February 20, 1996
Millstone
Waterford, Connecticut
Leaking valve forces shutdown of Units 1 and 2, multiple equipment failures found
 US$254

September 2, 1996
Crystal River
Crystal River, Florida
Balance-of-plant equipment malfunction forces shutdown and extensive repairs
 US$384

February 1, 2010
Vermont Yankee
Vernon, Vermont
Deteriorating underground pipes leak radioactive tritium into groundwater supplies
 US$700

text: Security and deliberate attacks[edit]

text: The United States 9/11 Commission has said that nuclear power plants were potential targets originally considered for the September 11, 2001 attacks. If terrorist groups could sufficiently damage safety systems to cause a core meltdown at a nuclear power plant, and/or sufficiently damage spent fuel pools, such an attack could lead to widespread radioactive contamination. The research scientist Harold Feiveson has written that nuclear facilities should be made extremely safe from attacks that could release massive quantities of radioactivity into the community. New reactor designs have features of passive nuclear safety, which may help. In the United States, the NRC carries out "Force on Force" (FOF) exercises at all Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) sites at least once every three years.[32]

text: Uranium supply[edit]

text: A 2012 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded: “The currently defined uranium resource base is more than adequate to meet high-case requirements through 2035 and well into the foreseeable future.”[104]

text: At the start of 2013, the identified remaining worldwide uranium resources stood at 5.90 million tons, enough to supply the world's reactors at current consumption rates for more than 120 years, even if no additional uranium deposits are discovered in the meantime. Undiscovered uranium resources as of 2013 were estimated to be 7.7 million tons. Doubling the price of uranium would increase the identified reserves as of 2013 to 7.64 million tons.[105] Over the decade 2003–2013, the identified reserves of uranium (at the same price of US$130/kg) rose from 4.59 million tons in 2003 to 5.90 million tons in 2013, an increase of 28%.[106]

text: Fuel cycle[edit]

text: Uranium mining[edit]

text:
The United States has the 4th largest uranium reserves in the world.[107] The U.S. has its most prominent uranium reserves in New Mexico, Texas, and Wyoming. The U.S. Department of Energy has approximated there to be at least 300 million pounds of uranium in these areas.[108] Domestic production increased until 1980, after which it declined sharply due to low uranium prices. In 2012 the United States mined 17% of the uranium consumed by its nuclear power plants. The remainder was imported, principally from Canada, Russia and Australia.[107]
Uranium is mined using several methods including open-pit mining, underground mining, and in-situ leaching.[109]

text: Uranium enrichment[edit]

text:
There is one gas centrifuge enrichment plant currently in commercial operation in the US. The National Enrichment Facility, operated by URENCO east of Eunice, New Mexico, was the first uranium enrichment plant in 30 years to be built in the US. The plant started enriching uranium in 2010.[110]
Two additional gas centrifuge plants have been licensed by the NRC, but are not operating. The American Centrifuge Plant in Piketown, Ohio broke ground in 2007, but stopped construction in 2009. The Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility in Bonneville County, Idaho was licensed in 2011, but construction is on hold.[111]

text: Previously (2008), demonstration activities were underway in Oak Ridge, Tennessee for a future centrifugal enrichment plant. The new plant would have been called the American Centrifuge Plant, at an estimated cost of 2.3 billion USD.[112]

text: As of September 30, 2015, the DOE is ending its contract with the American Centrifuge Project and has stopped funding the project.[113]

text: Reprocessing[edit]

text: Nuclear reprocessing has been politically controversial because of the potential to contribute to nuclear proliferation, the potential vulnerability to nuclear terrorism, the political challenges of repository siting, and because of its high cost compared to the once-through fuel cycle.[114] The Obama administration has disallowed reprocessing of nuclear waste, citing nuclear proliferation concerns.[115] Critics of reprocessing worry that the recycled materials will be used for weapons. However, it is unlikely that reprocessed plutonium would be used for nuclear weapons, because it is not weapons-grade.[116] Nonetheless, it is possible that terrorists could steal these materials, because the reprocessed plutonium is less radiotoxic than spent fuel and therefore much easier to steal. Nuclear power plants may not even notice if plutonium was stolen. It is difficult for plants to measure within even tens of kilograms, because making measurements at that accuracy is very time-consuming; consequently, it is likely that smaller amounts of plutonium could be stolen without detection.[117] Additionally, reprocessing is more expensive when compared with spent fuel storage. One study by the Boston Consulting Group estimated that reprocessing is six percent more expensive than spent fuel storage while another study by the Kennedy School of Government stated that reprocessing is 100 percent more expensive.[118]

text: Waste disposal[edit]

text: Recently, as plants continue to age, many on-site spent fuel pools have come near capacity, prompting creation of dry cask storage facilities as well. Several lawsuits between utilities and the government have transpired over the cost of these facilities, because by law the government is required to foot the bill for actions that go beyond the spent fuel pool.

text: There are some 65,000 tons of nuclear waste now in temporary storage throughout the U.S.[119] Since 1987, Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, had been the proposed site for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, but the project was shelved in 2009 following years of controversy and legal wrangling.[119][120] An alternative plan has not been proffered.[121]

text: At places like Maine Yankee, Connecticut Yankee and Rancho Seco, reactors no longer operate, but the spent fuel remains in small concrete-and-steel silos that require maintenance and monitoring by a guard force. Sometimes the presence of nuclear waste prevents re-use of the sites by industry.[122]

text: Without a long-term solution to store nuclear waste, a nuclear renaissance in the U.S. remains unlikely. Nine states have "explicit moratoria on new nuclear power until a storage solution emerges".[123][124]

text: Some nuclear power advocates argue that the United States should develop factories and reactors that will recycle some spent fuel. But the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future said in 2012 that "no existing technology was adequate for that purpose, given cost considerations and the risk of nuclear proliferation".[124]

text: There is an "international consensus on the advisability of storing nuclear waste in deep underground repositories",[125] but no country in the world has yet opened such a site.[125][126][127][128][129][130] The Obama administration has disallowed reprocessing of nuclear waste, citing nuclear proliferation concerns.[115]

text: Water use in nuclear power production[edit]

text: A 2011 NREL study of water use in electricity generation concluded that the median nuclear plant with cooling towers consumed 672 gallons per megawatt-hour (gal/MWh), a usage similar to that of coal plants, but more than other generating technologies, except hydroelectricity (median reservoir evaporation loss of 4,491 gal/MWh) and concentrating solar power (786 gal/MWh for power tower designs, and 865 for trough).  Nuclear plants with once-through cooling systems consume only 269 gal/MWh, but require withdrawal of 44,350 gal/MWh. This makes nuclear plants with once-through cooling susceptible to drought.[132]

text: Once-through cooling systems, while once common, have come under attack for the possibility of damage to the environment. Wildlife can become trapped inside the cooling systems and killed, and the increased water temperature of the returning water can impact local ecosystems. US EPA regulations favors recirculating systems, even forcing some older power plants to replace existing once-through cooling systems with new recirculating systems.[citation needed]

text: A 2008 study by the Associated Press found that of the 104 nuclear reactors in the U.S., "... 24 are in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought. All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants’ turbines,"[133] much like all Rankine cycle power plants. During the 2008 southeast drought, reactor output was reduced to lower operating power or forced to shut down for safety.[133]

text: The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is located in a desert and purchases reclaimed wastewater for cooling.[134]

text: Plant decommissioning[edit]

text: The price of energy inputs and the environmental costs of every nuclear power plant continue long after the facility has finished generating its last useful electricity. Both nuclear reactors and uranium enrichment facilities must be decommissioned, returning the facility and its parts to a safe enough level to be entrusted for other uses. After a cooling-off period that may last as long as a century, reactors must be dismantled and cut into small pieces to be packed in containers for final disposal. The process is very expensive, time-consuming, dangerous for workers, hazardous to the natural environment, and presents new opportunities for human error, accidents or sabotage.[135]

text: The total energy required for decommissioning can be as much as 50% more than the energy needed for the original construction. In most cases, the decommissioning process costs between US $300 million to US$5.6 billion. Decommissioning at nuclear sites which have experienced a serious accident are the most expensive and time-consuming. In the U.S. there are 13 reactors that have permanently shut down and are in some phase of decommissioning, but none of them have completed the process.[135]

text: New methods for decommissioning have been developed in order to minimize the usual high decommissioning costs. One of these methods is in situ decommissioning (ISD), which was implemented at the U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Site in South Carolina for the closures of the P and R Reactors. With this tactic, the cost of decommissioning both reactors was $73 million. In comparison, the decommissioning of each reactor using traditional methods would have been an estimated $250 million. This results in a 71% decrease in cost by using ISD.[136]

text:
The number of nuclear power reactors are shrinking as they near the end of their life.
It is expected that by 2025 many of the reactors will have been shut down due to their age.
Because the costs associated with the constructions of nuclear reactors are also continuously increasing, this is expected to be problematic for the provision of energy in the country.[137]
When reactors are shut down, stakeholders in the energy sector are not replacing them with renewable energy resources but rather with coal and natural gas.
This is because unlike the renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, coal and natural gas can be used to generate electricity on a 24-hour basis.
In other words, the coal and natural gas seems to be convenient solutions for the energy problem that is encountered in the US.[138]

text: Organizations[edit]

text: Fuel vendors[edit]

text: The following companies have active Nuclear fuel fabrication facilities in the United States.[139] These are all light water fuel fabrication facilities because only LWRs are operating in the US. The US currently has no MOX fuel fabrication facilities, though Duke Energy has expressed intent of building one of a relatively small capacity.[140]

text: Areva

tag: ul

text: Westinghouse Electric Company

text: General Electric

text: KazAtomProm

text: Industry and academic[edit]

text: The American Nuclear Society (ANS) scientific and educational organization has both academic and industry members. The organization publishes a large amount of literature on nuclear technology in several journals. The ANS also has some offshoot organizations such as North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN).

text: The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is an industry group whose activities include lobbying, experience sharing between companies and plants, and provides data on the industry to a number of outfits.

text: Anti-nuclear power groups[edit]

text: Some sixty anti-nuclear power groups are operating, or have operated, in the United States. These include: Abalone Alliance, Clamshell Alliance, Greenpeace USA, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Musicians United for Safe Energy, Nuclear Control Institute, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Public Citizen Energy Program, Shad Alliance, and the Sierra Club.

text: In 1992, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that "his agency had been pushed in the right direction on safety issues because of the pleas and protests of nuclear watchdog groups".[144]

text: Debate about nuclear power in the U.S.[edit]

text: There has been considerable public and scientific debate about the use of nuclear power in the United States, mainly from the 1960s to the late 1980s, but also since about 2001 when talk of a nuclear renaissance began. There has been debate about issues such as nuclear accidents, radioactive waste disposal, nuclear proliferation, nuclear economics, and nuclear terrorism.[28]

text: Some scientists and engineers have expressed reservations about nuclear power, including: Barry Commoner, S. David Freeman, John Gofman, Arnold Gundersen, Mark Z. Jacobson, Amory Lovins, Arjun Makhijani, Gregory Minor, and Joseph Romm. Mark Z. Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, has said: "If our nation wants to reduce global warming, air pollution and energy instability, we should invest only in the best energy options. Nuclear energy isn't one of them".[145] Arnold Gundersen, chief engineer of Fairewinds Associates and a former nuclear power industry executive, has questioned the safety of the Westinghouse AP1000, a proposed third-generation nuclear reactor.[146] John Gofman, a nuclear chemist and doctor, raised concerns about exposure to low-level radiation in the 1960s and argued against commercial nuclear power in the U.S.[147] In “Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly,” Amory Lovins, a physicist with the Rocky Mountain Institute, argued that expanded nuclear power "does not represent a cost-effective solution to global warming and that investors would shun it were it not for generous government subsidies lubricated by intensive lobbying efforts".[148]

text: Environmentalist Patrick Moore spoke out against nuclear power in 1976,[149] but today he supports it, along with renewable energy sources.[150][151][152] In Australian newspaper The Age, he writes "Greenpeace is wrong — we must consider nuclear power".[153] He argues that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels or greenhouse gas emissions need increased use of nuclear energy.[150] Phil Radford, Executive Director of Greenpeace US responded that nuclear energy is too risky, takes too long to build to address climate change, and by showing that the can U.S. shift to nearly 100% renewable energy while phasing out nuclear power by 2050.[154][155]

text: Environmentalist Stewart Brand wrote the book Whole Earth Discipline, which examines how nuclear power and some other technologies can be used as tools to address global warming.[156] Bernard Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh, calculates that nuclear power is many times safer than other forms of power generation.[157]

text: President Obama early on included nuclear power as part of his “all of the above” energy strategy.[158] In a speech to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in 2010, he demonstrated his commitment to nuclear power by announcing his approval of an $8 billion loan guarantee to pave the way for construction of the first new US nuclear power plant in nearly 30 years.[159][160] Then in 2012, his first post-Fukishima state-of-the-union address, Barack Obama said that America needs “an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy,” yet pointedly omitted any mention of nuclear power.[161] But in February 2014, Energy secretary Ernest Moniz announced $6.5 billion in federal loan guarantees to enable construction of two new nuclear reactors, the first in the US since 1996.[162]

text: According to the Union of Concerned Scientists in March 2013 over one-third of U.S. nuclear power plants suffered safety-related incidents over the past three years, and nuclear regulators and plant operators need to improve inspections to prevent such events.[163]

text: Pandora's Promise is a 2013 documentary film, directed by Robert Stone. It presents an argument that nuclear energy, typically feared by environmentalists, is in fact the only feasible way of meeting humanity's growing need for energy while also addressing the serious problem of climate change. The movie features several notable individuals (some of whom were once vehemently opposed to nuclear power, but who now speak in support of it), including: Stewart Brand, Gwyneth Cravens, Mark Lynas, Richard Rhodes and Michael Shellenberger.[164] Anti-nuclear advocate Helen Caldicott appears briefly.[165]

text: As of 2014, the U.S. nuclear industry has begun a new lobbying effort, hiring three former senators — Evan Bayh, a Democrat; Judd Gregg, a Republican; and Spencer Abraham, a Republican — as well as William M. Daley, a former staffer to President Obama. The initiative is called Nuclear Matters, and it has begun a newspaper advertising campaign.[166]

text: Public opinion[edit]

text: The Gallup organization, which has periodically polled US opinion on nuclear power since 1994, found in March 2016 that, for the first time, a majority (54%) opposed nuclear power, versus 44% in favor. In polls from 2004 through 2015, a majority had supported nuclear power. support peaked at 62% in 2010, and has been in decline since.[167]

text: According to a CBS News poll, what had been growing acceptance of nuclear power in the United States was eroded sharply following the 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents, with support for building nuclear power plants in the U.S. dropping slightly lower than it was immediately after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.[168] Only 43 percent of those polled after the Fukushima nuclear emergency said they would approve building new power plants in the United States.[168] A Washington Post-ABC poll conducted in April 2011 found that 64 percent of Americans opposed the construction of new nuclear reactors.[169] A survey sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute, conducted in September 2011, found that "62 percent of respondents said they favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States, with 35 percent opposed".[170]

text: According to a 2012 Pew Research Center poll, 44 percent of Americans favored and 49 percent opposed the promotion of increased use of nuclear power.[171]

text: A January 2014 Rasmussen poll found likely US voters split nearly evenly on whether to build more nuclear power plants, 39 percent in favor, versus 37 percent opposed, with an error margin of 3 percent.[172]

text: Prospects of a nuclear renaissance[edit]

text: As of 2017, the US Energy Information Administration projects that US nuclear generating capacity will decline 23 percent from its 2016 level of 99.1 GW, to 76.5 GW in 2050, and the nuclear share of electrical generation to go from 20% in 2016 down to 11% in 2050. Driving the decline will be retirements of existing units, to be partially offset by additional units currently under construction and expected capacity expansions of existing reactors.[173]

text: In the 2000s there was a renewed interest in nuclear power in the US, spurred by anticipated government curbs on carbon emissions, and a belief that fossil fuels would become more costly.[174]  Ultimately however, as of 2018 following Westinhouse's Chapter 11 bankruptcy, only two new nuclear reactors are under construction in the U.S., at Vogtle.  In addition Watts Bar unit 2, whose construction was started in 1973 but suspended in the 1980s, was completed and commissioned in 2016.

text: Signs of a revival[edit]

text: The federal government encouraged development of nuclear power through the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, which coordinates efforts for building new nuclear power plants,[175] and the Energy Policy Act which has provisions favorable to nuclear.[176][177] In February 2010, President Barack Obama announced loan guarantees for two new reactors at Georgia Power's Vogtle Electric Generating Plant.[178][179] The reactors are "just the first of what we hope will be many new nuclear projects," said Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy.

text: In 2008, it was reported that The Shaw Group and Westinghouse would construct a factory at the Port of Lake Charles at Lake Charles, Louisiana to build components for the Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor.[180] On October 23, 2008, it was reported that Northrop Grumman and Areva were planning to construct a factory in Newport News, Virginia to build nuclear reactors.[181]

text: As of March 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission had received applications for permission to construct 26 new nuclear power reactors[182] with applications for another 7 expected.[183][184] Six of these reactors have been ordered.[185] However, not all the proposed new capacity will necessarily be built, with some applications being made to keep future options open and reserving places in a queue for government incentives available for up to the first three plants based on each innovative reactor design.[183]

text: In August 2011, the TVA board of directors voted to move forward with the construction of the unit one reactor at the Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station.[186] In addition, the Tennessee Valley Authority petitioned to restart construction on the first two units at Bellefonte. But as of March 2012, many contractors have been laid off and the ultimate cost and timing for Bellefonte 1 will depend on work at another reactor TVA is completing – Watts Bar 2 in Tennessee. In February 2012, TVA said the Watts Bar 2 project was running over budget and behind schedule.[187]

text: In 2012, The NRC approved construction permits for four new nuclear reactor units at two existing plants, the first permits in 34 years.[188] The first new permits, for two proposed reactors at the Vogtle plant, were approved in February 2012.[189] NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko cast the lone dissenting vote, citing safety concerns stemming from Japan's 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster: "I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima never happened".[190]

text: The first two of the newly approved units were the Units 3 and 4 at the existing Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. As of December 2011, construction by Southern Company on the two new nuclear units had begun, and they are expected to be delivering commercial power by 2016 and 2017, respectively.[191][192] One week after Southern received the license to begin major construction on the two new reactors, a dozen environmental and anti-nuclear groups sued to stop the Plant Vogtle expansion project, saying "public safety and environmental problems since Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor accident have not been taken into account".[193] The lawsuit was dismissed in July 2012.

text: Also in 2012, Units 2 and 3 at the SCANA Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in South Carolina were approved, and are scheduled to come online in 2017 and 2018, respectively.[188]

text: A proposed nuclear power plant, the Blue Castle Project, is set to begin construction near Green River, Utah in 2023.[194] The plant will use 53,500 acre-feet of water annually from the Green River once both reactors are commissioned.[195] The first reactor is scheduled to come online in 2028, with the second reactor coming online in 2030.[194]

text: On 4 June 2018, World Nuclear News reported that: "US President Donald Trump has directed Secretary of Energy Rick Perry to take immediate action to stop the loss of 'fuel-secure power facilities' from the country's power grid, including nuclear power plants that are facing premature retirement".[196]

text: Continued problems and opposition[edit]

text: A number of other reactors were under consideration – a third reactor at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Maryland, a third and fourth reactor at South Texas Nuclear Generating Station, together with two other reactors in Texas, four in Florida, and one in Missouri. However, these have all been postponed or canceled.[197] But, looking ahead, experts see continuing challenges that will make it very difficult for the nuclear power industry to expand beyond a small handful of reactor projects that "government agencies decide to subsidize by forcing taxpayers to assume the risk for the reactors and mandating that ratepayers pay for construction in advance".[62]

text: In May 2009, John Rowe, chairman of Exelon, which operates 17 nuclear reactors, stated that he would cancel or delay construction of two new reactors in Texas without federal loan guarantees.[126] Following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, he remarked that the nuclear renaissance was dead.[citation needed] Amory Lovins added that "market forces had killed it years earlier".[198]

text: In July 2009, the proposed Victoria County Nuclear Power Plant was delayed, as the project proved difficult to finance.[199] As of  April 2009[update], AmerenUE has suspended plans to build its proposed plant in Missouri because the state Legislature would not allow it to charge consumers for some of the project's costs before the plant's completion. The New York Times has reported that without that "financial and regulatory certainty" the company has said it could not proceed.[200] Previously, MidAmerican Energy Company decided to "end its pursuit of a nuclear power plant in Payette County, Idaho." MidAmerican cited cost as the primary factor in their decision.[201]

text: In February 2010, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 to block operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant after 2012, citing radioactive tritium leaks, misstatements in testimony by plant officials, a cooling tower collapse in 2007, and other problems. By state law, the renewal of the operating license must be approved by both houses of the legislature for the nuclear power plant to continue operation.[202]

text: In 2010, demand for nuclear power softened in America, and some companies withdrew their applications for licenses to build.[203][204] In September 2010, Matthew Wald from the New York Times reported that "the nuclear renaissance is looking small and slow at the moment".[197]

text: In the first quarter of 2011, renewable energy contributed 11.7 percent of total U.S. energy production (2.245 quadrillion BTUs of energy), surpassing energy production from nuclear power (2.125 quadrillion BTUs).[205] 2011 was the first year since 1997 that renewables exceeded nuclear in US total energy production.[206]

text: In August 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that the NRC's rules for the temporary storage and permanent disposal of nuclear waste stood in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, rendering the NRC legally unable to grant final licenses for any further new nuclear power plants.[207] This ruling was based on the fact that the Yucca Mountain waste repository had never received a license due to its license application being withdrawn by the DOE nor had any viable alternative waste repository been proposed. So long as this ruling stands and this impasse on waste disposal exists, no additional nuclear plants can ever be licensed for operation in the United States.[citation needed]

text:
In March 2013, the concrete for the basemat of Block 2 of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station was poured.  First concrete for Unit 3 was completed on November 4, 2013.
In March 2013, construction on unit 3 of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant started.  Unit 4 was begun in November 2013. However, following Westinhouse's Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the construction of the two new nuclear reactors at Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station was abandoned in 2017.

text: In 2015 the Energy Information Administration estimated that nuclear power's share of U.S. generation would fall from 19% to 15% by 2040 in its central estimate (High Oil and Gas Resource case). However, as total generation increases 24% by 2040 in the central estimate, the absolute amount of nuclear generation remains fairly flat.[208]

text: Economics[edit]

text: The low price of natural gas in the US since 2008 has spurred construction of gas-fired power plants as an alternative to nuclear plants. In August 2011, the head of America's largest nuclear utility said that this was not the time to build new nuclear plants, not because of political opposition or the threat of cost overruns, but because of the low price of natural gas. John Rowe, head of Exelon, said “Shale [gas] is good for the country, bad for new nuclear development".[161]

text: In 2013, four older reactors were permanently closed: San Onofre 2 and 3 in California, Crystal River 3 in Florida, and Kewaunee in Wisconsin.[7][8] The state of Vermont tried to shut Vermont Yankee, in Vermont, but the plant was closed by the parent corporation for economic reasons in December 2014. New York State is seeking to close Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, in Buchanan, 30 miles from New York City, despite this reactor being the primary contributor to Vermont's green energy fund.[8][210]

text: The additional cancellation of five large reactor upgrades (Prairie Island, 1 reactor, LaSalle, 2 reactors, and Limerick, 2 reactors), four by the largest nuclear company in the U.S., suggest that the nuclear industry faces "a broad range of operational and economic problems".[211]

text: In July 2013, economist Mark Cooper named some nuclear power plants that face particularly intense challenges to their continued operation:[211]

text:
Palisades, decomissioning announced for spring 2022
Ft. Calhoun, decommissioned 2016
Nine Mile Point
Fitzpatrick
Ginna
Oyster Creek, decomissioning announced for Dec. 2019
Vermont Yankee, decommissioned 2014
Millstone
Clinton
Indian Point, decomissionings announced for April 2020, and April 2021

text: Cooper said that the lesson for policy makers and economists is clear: "nuclear reactors are simply not competitive".[211]

text: In December 2010, The Economist reported that the demand for nuclear power was softening in America.[204] In recent years,[when?] utilities have shown an interest in about 30 new reactors, but the number with any serious prospect of being built as of the end of 2010 was about a dozen, as some companies had withdrawn their applications for licenses to build.[203][212] Exelon has withdrawn its application for a license for a twin-unit nuclear plant in Victoria County, Texas, citing lower electricity demand projections. The decision has left the country’s largest nuclear operator without a direct role in what the nuclear industry hopes is a nuclear renaissance.[213] Ground has been broken on two new nuclear plants with a total of four reactors. The Obama administration was seeking the expansion of a loan guarantee program but as of December 2010 had been unable to commit all the loan guarantee money already approved by Congress. Since talk a few years ago[when?] of a “nuclear renaissance”, gas prices have fallen and old reactors are getting license extensions. The only reactor to finish construction after 1996 was at Watts Bar, Tennessee, is an old unit, begun in 1973, whose construction was suspended in 1988, and was resumed in 2007.[214] It became operational in October 2016. Of the 100 reactors operating in the U.S., ground was broken on all of them in 1974 or earlier.[203][204]

text: Experts see continuing challenges that will make it very difficult for the nuclear power industry to expand beyond a small handful of reactor projects that "government agencies decide to subsidize by forcing taxpayers to assume the risk for the reactors and mandating that ratepayers pay for construction in advance".[62]

text: In August 2012, Exelon stated that economic and market conditions, especially low natural gas prices, made the "construction of new merchant nuclear power plants in competitive markets uneconomical now and for the foreseeable future".[215] In early 2013 UBS noted that some smaller reactors operating in deregulated markets may become uneconomic to operate and maintain, due to competition from generators using low priced natural gas, and may be retired early.[216] The 556 MWe Kewaunee Power Station is being closed 20 years before license expiry for these economic reasons.[210][217][218] In February 2014 the Financial Times identified Pilgrim, Indian Point, Clinton and Quad Cities power stations as potentially at risk of premature closure for economic reasons.[219]

text: As of 2017, the U.S. shale gas boom has lowered electricity generation costs placing severe pressure on the economics of operating older existing nuclear power plants.[220] Analysis by Bloomberg shows that over half of U.S. nuclear plants are running at a loss.[221] The Nuclear Energy Institute has estimated that 15 to 20 reactors are at risk of early closure for economic reasons.[222] Nuclear operators in Illinois and New York have obtained financial support from regulators, and operators in Connecticut, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania are seeking similar support.[220] Some non-nuclear power generating companies have filed unfair competition lawsuits against these subsidies, and have raised the issue with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.[221]