Nuclear power in next 10 years

  • Will US nuclear power generation increase in the next 10 years?
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

Small reactors for larger industrial plants, yes.

I can choose up to two options? Seems pretty wishy-washy to me!


Virginia (Ashburn area) has over 300 data centers, yeap. Cities like that where the base load is much higher and consistent will go for the nuclear plants, rather than few industrial plants.

1 Like

Vogtle 4 is schedule to come online this year, and the Palisades nuclear plant is schedule to restart next year. So I think nuclear generation is lock to increase in the next few years. Plus the IRA provides enormous subsidies to keep existing nuclear plants from closing.

I’m not aware of any new planned utility-scale nuclear plants in the US, and they usually take longer than 10 years to build. So we might see something like that eventually, but not for another decade at least.

1 Like

Unit 4 started producing electricity a few hours ago, so it is officially “online” right now.

Initial criticality of the reactor was in mid-February.

  • Pete

It doesn’t have to, with modern technology, and approvals are quick, you can get it done in 4 to 5 years. US policy making is a mess. US policy is a bigger risk than anything else.

1 Like

Two options are YES or NO. Not wishy -washy to me.

No they will not in the next 10 years. They need to get started building now to generate any electricity in 10 years.

1 Like

Are you certain that other operating nuclear plants will not shutdown in the next 10 years?
The Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant received approval from the California PUC to operate its two reactors until 2029 and 2030. Five days later, the NRC issued a temporary license renewal.
California's Lone Operating Nuclear Plant Gets Five-Year Extension | Planetizen News.

And I was able to choose both! That sounds pretty wishy-washy to me. Take a look at the vote results. :innocent:


1 Like

The poll asks what will happen in the real world - not in the make believe world.
US policy has nothing to do with getting any nuclear plant built in less than 10 years. Commercial utilities do not want to build nuclear power plants. There are no SMRs being built that will generate electricity in 10 years. The lack of proven designs and money are the main problems facing nuclear power.

Anyone voting for both YES and NO is wishy-washy.

I see that you did not want to vote in the poll. I take that to mean the you will not put your name to having more nuclear power generation on March 1, 2034, than is being generated today.

I think that explanation is incomplete. The French can’t be a reactor in less than 10 years either. I think the fuller explanation is that we’ve lost the institutional knowledge required to build big nuclear projects like this.

I saw an estimate that Vogtle 4 is costing about 30% less than Vogtle 3. So it appears that lessons learned from 3 are being applied to 4. If there were another reactor in line to built it likely would be faster and cheaper than 4.

Most nuclear facilities were constructed with the idea of constructing more reactors than were actually built. So there are a large number of locations (50+ IIRC) that have already gone through the siting process. The AP 1000 is an approved reactor design.

If you look closely, there are actually three options. :wink:

Not all. It is entirely possible. Many plants are nearing the end of their lifespans and are becoming uneconomical to run. The current policy is to try to keep them running as long as possible, but that could all change with the election. I think they will be kept running, but I don’t know for sure.

Clearly you do not understand how to do ‘polls’. I was just trying to help you out; but fine, whatever!


I can’t remember ever participating in a Motley Fool poll. It serves no purpose that I can see.

  • Pete

I think most agree that nuclear will probably be needed for reliable power after fossil fuels are eliminated. Mass production of standardized small plants might do much to control costs. Waste disposal remains an issue. Reprocessing spent fuel makes a lot of sense.

Most aspects are more political than anything else. Can voters be convinced to give new technologies a chance to show what they can do?

This is the best political climate for nuclear in probably ever. The IRA provides up to a 50% tax credit for new nuclear and there is producer price credit on top of that. The case for nuclear will never get better than it is right now.

The problem is that new nuclear costs about 4-5 times more than other sources.