What Could a “Nuclear Revolution” Really Look Like?
The nuclear revolution the United States needs will require breaking free from outdated regulations and empowering market-driven innovation to lead the energy future.
When I began working on energy policy in 2008, “nuclear renaissance” was all the buzz. Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama emphasized the need for American energy independence and more emissions-free power. Senator McCain called for the United States to build forty-five new nuclear reactors by 2030. The plan was ambitious, but as one of his top economic advisors commented at the time, “not so large as to be infeasible given permitting and construction times.”
With less than five years to go, only two reactors have been built since the late senator’s campaign pledge. Those units cost over $30 billion, running seven years behind schedule and $17 billion over budget, though the second unit experienced 30 percent cost declines. Maybe the current state of the nuclear industry would look different if McCain had won, but here we are.
Tech Advances and Policy Stagnates
In fact, in 2025, the nuclear industry does look very different. A wide range of small modular reactor (SMR) technologies is emerging. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that eighty SMR designs and concepts exist worldwide. While most are not novel technologies, the budding SMR industry ranges from 50-megawatt microreactors to 300-megawatt designs. Many innovative companies are American-based or allies of the United States. With data centers’ impending load growth demand, several states are considering restarting decommissioned nuclear plants.
Yet, the nuclear policy landscape looks frustratingly similar. Overregulation and red tape stifle a once-competitive industry. Like most conversations in Washington, nuclear policy discussions center around procuring more taxpayer funding rather than addressing the underlying regulatory problems. The federal government’s continued mismanagement of spent nuclear fuel is not a safety risk but a huge taxpayer burden.
In a new book, Nuclear Revolution: Powering the Next Generation, author Jack Spencer argues that we need a policy revolution. Jack is a one-of-one voice in the nuclear world. He knows the industry and the policy inside and out. Full disclosure: Jack is my former boss, mentor, and very good friend. He’s forgotten more about nuclear energy policy than I’ll ever know.
Jack is unabashedly pro-nuclear and unabashedly pro-free market. For many, those are two circles in a Venn diagram that do not overlap. He spent most of his life advocating for policies that would empower the industry to be successful. But if uncompetitive in a free market, he’s willing to let nuclear die on the vine. However, his confidence is unwavering that if policymakers roll up their sleeves and fix nuclear’s policy problems, the industry will flourish—for the betterment of American families, our national security interests, and environmental ambitions.
A Blueprint for Reform
Nuclear Revolution isn’t just another book that lazily cheerleads the industry, though there is a fair amount of marveling at the technology and underscoring its benefits and potential. Instead, it’s a compelling reassessment of nuclear energy policy. He outlines pragmatic policy reforms that could accelerate nuclear innovation without compromising safety. In addition to thoroughly outlining the cost and market distortions caused by energy subsidies, some of Spencer’s compelling recommendations include:
- Modernizing low-dose radiation exposure standards. Under the current regulatory structure, nuclear power plants must produce radiation levels that are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). ALARA is based on the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model, which implies proportionality between dose and cancer risk, a relationship that has been challenged by scientific data and experiments. ALARA standards impose a moving target that is difficult and expensive to attain because plant operators and reactor developers can always emit less radiation. As a result, ALARA drives up compliance and staffing requirements, which adds unnecessary costs to power plant operations and makes nuclear energy less competitive—all for little to no public health and safety benefit.
- Broadening state authority to regulate nuclear power. As Spencer notes, states already have the authority to regulate some nuclear materials under the Agreement State Program in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. States could demonstrate to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they have the necessary expertise to regulate other activities like construction, operation, and fuel cycle facilities. Doing so would incentivize states to help build regulatory programs that enable timely construction of reactors while freeing up the NRC to focus on its core competencies, including relicensing and restarting nuclear power plants in the existing fleet.
- Apply market principles to spent nuclear fuel policy reform. Despite promising to begin collecting spent fuel in January 1998, the federal government has failed in its legal obligation. When the government doesn’t fulfill its obligation to companies, those companies sue—and win. And when the government loses a lawsuit, taxpayers foot the bill—to the tune of $10.6 billion. Spencer outlines a system to deal with the existing spent fuel (that could be buried on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards) while transitioning to a new system where nuclear utilities are responsible for the waste they produce. Injecting market principles and transitioning to private sector responsibility would reduce the taxpayer burden and drive innovative solutions to store and manage spent fuel safely.
- Fixing nuclear fuel markets. For far too long, America has been dependent on Russia for uranium and nuclear fuel services like uranium enrichment. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine significantly escalated that concern. Spencer notes that President Biden’s signing of the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act into law was a “massive step in the right direction,” but the waiver process is too lenient. While waivers may be necessary in limited cases, abuse of the waiver program will not give investors the certainty needed to expand enrichment infrastructure. A more efficient system that expands domestic uranium mining, builds enrichment facilities, and supports nuclear exports to allies will help create a diversified, economically competitive market.
As Spencer notes, these are not “tinker around the edges” reforms. They won’t be easy. But the recommendations are policy fixes necessary to empower companies to build reactors on time and on budget. If implemented, these policies would help protect taxpayers and the environment. Spencer presents ambitious and creative ideas. His book provides the blueprint for a nuclear policy revolution that can truly enable a nuclear energy revolution.
Nick Loris is the Vice President of Public Policy at C3 Solutions. He writes and regularly testifies before Congress on energy, climate, and environmental issues.
Image: Metamorworks/Shutterstock