New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Nuclear Power Project in Georgia Gets Boost from Feds

The $6.5-billion in loan guarantees from the U.S. Department of Energy comes amid fading hopes for an industry renaissance

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The Department of Energy said on 19 February that it has approved $6.5 billion in loan guarantees for the $14-billion Vogtle nuclear project near Waynesboro, Georgia. The two reactors received regulatory approval in 2012 — the first new US reactors in roughly 30 years.

The announcement came as energy secretary Ernest Moniz reiterated the support of President Barack Obama’s administration for nuclear power as part of its “all-of-the-above” energy strategy to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and as a way to help to reduce US greenhouse-gas emissions. “The President wants to make clear that he sees nuclear energy as part of his carbon-free portfolio,” Moniz said.

These are tricky times for the US nuclear power industry, which faces stiff competition in some regions from natural gas and renewable energy. Market pressures drove the closure of nuclear plants in Vermont and Wisconsin in the past year, and safety and reliability concerns have prompted plants in California and Florida to shutter. Aside from the two reactors under construction at the Vogtle site, only two other reactors have been approved for construction, in South Carolina. Projections from the US Energy Information Administration released in December suggest that US nuclear power generation for electricity will grow by 5% from 2012 to 2040, even as its share of the electricity market is predicted to fall from 19% to 16%.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“Utilities are behaving very conservatively right now,” says Doug Vine, a senior fellow at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions in Arlington, Virginia. That is less true, he notes, in states with regulated electricity markets, such as Georgia and South Carolina, which can set rates that allow power operators to recover the high capital costs of nuclear power plants from consumers.

Elsewhere in the country, the Energy Department’s effort to spur a nuclear renaissance seems to have fizzled. Only a handful of nuclear projects have applied to the Energy Department loan-guarantee program that began in 2005, when backers anticipated a boom in the demand for nuclear energy. The program allows up to $17.5-billion in guarantees in which the government would assume debt if the borrower defaults. “This is probably closing the chapter on the story that started back in 2005,” says Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington DC. “It’s more or less the end, rather than the beginning.”

This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on February 20, 2014.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe