Little money left to power down nuclear reactors

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



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.


Many of the nation’s nuclear power plants don’t have enough cash set aside to close down safely, according to a wire report late last week. And a hastily closed plant could result in such ills as water contamination and theft of nuclear materials.

Taking a nuclear reactor off-line costs about $450 million, which includes storing fuel and dismantling the plant, among other expenses, according to an investigation by the Associated Press. But as funds have flowed out of companies’ investments during the recession, the amount of money earmarked for safe dismantling has also diminished.

About a third of the country’s plants have been asked by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for plans on how to make up for fiscal shortcomings.

“This is not a current safety issue,” Tim McGinty, NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation policy and rulemaking director, said in a statement. “But the plants do have to prove to us they’re setting aside money appropriately.”

Some industry insiders go even further. “No one at the NRC wants to acknowledge what is absolutely obvious to us,” a retired nuclear engineer told the AP. “The funds are inadequate and the industry has bare assets.”

How will companies generate the cash to close plants? Keep pumping out the power.

Twenty-year extensions on operating licenses have already been granted to more than half of the U.S.’s 104 nuclear plants, the AP reports, and another 16 are currently under review. In addition to hoping for better market performance to up their assets, the companies will likely pass costs on to customers in the form of small surcharges.

Image courtesy of rowens27's via Flickr

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe