Nuclear Energy in the U.S.

The United States is the world’s largest producer of nuclear power, accounting for more than 30 percent
of worldwide nuclear-generated electricity (Nuclear power in the USA, 2018).

As of 2018, there are 60 commercially operated power

plants in the U.S., with 98 nuclear reactors in 30 states.
Of these nuclear plants, Palo Verde is the largest
generating station with three nuclear reactors and a
combined electricity generating capacity of 3,937
megawatts (MW) (How many nuclear power plants are
in the United States, and where are they located?,
2018).

Most U.S. nuclear facilities were built between 1970 and

Figure 1: Plant Distribution
1990, and the oldest operating nuclear reactor was built
in 1969. They have a capacity weighted average of 37
operating years and are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for an initial operating life
of 40 years. After that, owners of nuclear plants can apply for license renewal of up to 20 more years
(Mobilia, 2017).

The NRC is the government agency established in 1974 to be responsible for regulation of the nuclear
industry, notably reactors, fuel cycle facilities, materials and wastes. Also, the industry invests about
$7.5 billion per year in maintenance and upgrades of the plants (Nuclear power in the USA, 2018).

Nuclear in Decline
Although nuclear power accounts for 20
percent of all U.S. electricity generation, that
percentage is declining as nuclear facilities
are retiring. For example, in October 2016
the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Generating Station
retired, marking the fifth nuclear retirement
since 2013. Additionally, several other plants,
such as Oyster Creek in New Jersey, Pilgrim in
Massachusetts and Palisades Power Plant in
Michigan have announced plans to retire in
Figure 2: Capacity Changes the near future. This totals more than 4 GW
of energy capacity that will be lost (U.S. nuclear capacity and generation expected to decline as existing
generators retire, 2017).

Nuclear Energy in Politics

Clean energy is spoken of frequently during political debates, especially with new technology emerging.
Some well-known political figures have strong opinions on nuclear energy, both favoring and opposing it
as a clean-energy option. Republicans like nuclear power because it is cost efficient, and democrats like
it because it is clean, however some politicians are actively fighting to eliminate nuclear energy and rely
solely on renewables.

Bernie Sanders, a democrat who plans to run his second race for presidency in 2020, has always been
strongly opposed to nuclear energy. Because of the cost to build and maintain the facilities as well as the
dangers of mining uranium and storing spent fuel, Sanders’ wish is to deny relicensing applications
(Adler, 2016). This would cause nuclear to slowly fade out of the equation.

Former Texas Governor, two-time presidential candidate, and current Secretary of Energy Rick Perry is a
strong supporter of nuclear energy. On Feb. 22, 2019, Perry visited Phoenix and toured some of APS’
facilities. One of the locations Perry walked through is a battery storage facility in Buckeye which is used
to support homes utilizing solar power.

Although Perry thinks highly of renewable energy sources like solar power just like Sanders does, he
believes nuclear should stay in the equation. When asked about the role of nuclear power in the future,
Perry replied, “America needs to continue to be engaged in the development of the next generation of
nuclear power” (Randazzo, 2019).

The Price of Nuclear Energy

There is debate around whether nuclear energy is economically viable or not. Some say that the high
initial costs of building a plant overcome its low operating costs. Others say that the low operating costs
justify the expensive building costs.

Nuclear power plants are quite

expensive and time-intensive to build.
During the 5 to 10 years of building,
they cost billions of dollars (Nuclear
energy: pros & cons, 2016). However,
once up and running, nuclear plants
generate relatively inexpensive
electricity, especially compared to gas,
coal or any other fossil fuel plants. And
with a plant’s average lifecycle of 40 to
60 years, many agree its low operating
costs outweigh its high upfront costs to
build. The combination of nuclear
energy’s reliability as well as its low
operating costs makes it an
economically viable option. And, not to Figure 3: Electricity Production Costs
mention, its produces clean energy.

According to a Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) study, the nearly 100 reactors in the U.S. provide
substantial economic benefits. The study shows that the typical nuclear power plant generates
approximately $470 million in sales of goods and services in the local community and nearly $40 million
in total labor income (Fauske, 2017).

The study also explained that every dollar spent by the industry at a nuclear facility results in the
creation of $1.04 in the local community, $1.18 at the state level and $1.87 at the national level (Fauske,
2017).

Palo Verde’s Economic Impact

Overall, a nuclear plant’s impact on a community is large. According to the APS website, Palo Verde is
the largest single commercial taxpayer in Arizona. The plant also provides more than $2 billion through
taxes, salaries, material and service purchases, and more. Additionally, it purchases $130 million in
products and services from more than 1,200 Arizona business every year (Generation, 2018).