Senator unveils $700 billion plan for nuclear plants


CSA Z463 Electrical Maintenance -

Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.

  • Live Online
  • 6 hours Instructor-led
  • Group Training Available
Regular Price:
$249
Coupon Price:
$199
Reserve Your Seat Today
U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander said the climate-change bill passed last month by the U.S. House would lead to a "job-killing national energy tax" and that a better option for clean, low-cost energy would be to build new nuclear plants.

"We Americans invented the (nuclear) technology," the Maryville Republican said. "Isn't it time we got back into the game?''

Alexander has been calling in recent weeks for the federal government to allow the construction of 100 nuclear power plants over the next 20 years, and has outlined a blueprint for how that goal could be achieved.

Alexander estimated the cost of 100 nuclear reactors to be around $700 billion, but said nearly all of the money would come from private investment. The only federal contribution would be loan guarantees for the first dozen or so reactors, he said.

Besides loan guarantees, the government would need to increase the amount of money available for research and development into the safe recycling of nuclear fuel, Alexander said.

Congress would also have to let the Nuclear Regulatory Commission hire more workers to process applications for the new plants, he said.

What's needed most, however, is presidential leadership, Alexander said. He urged President Barack Obama to instruct his advisers to provide him with a plan on how to go about developing the plants and to point out potential obstacles.

"The difficulties with nuclear power are political, not technological, social not economic," Alexander said. "The main obstacle is a lingering doubt and fear in the public mind about the technology. Any progressive administration that wishes to solve the problem of global warming without crushing the American economy should be helping the public resolve these doubts and fears."

Clean energy is at the top of Congress' agenda as the Senate prepares to tackle climate change legislation.

The House voted 219-212 late last month to pass a bill that would limit the emission of greenhouse gases that scientists say are responsible for global warming. But the bill's prospects are far less certain in the Senate, where Republicans oppose the measure and even some Democrats have serious concerns.

Alexander derided the House bill as "a contraption of taxes and mandates" that will raise the price of electricity, hurt the economy and drive manufacturing jobs out of the country. The bill "needs to be junked," he said.

Nuclear power should be the first step to a policy of clean, low-cost energy, Alexander said. While nuclear power produces only 20 percent of electricity in the United States, it produces 70 percent of carbon-free, pollution-free electricity, he said.

Building 100 new nuclear plants would double U.S. electricity production from nuclear power in 20 years, making it about 40 percent of all electricity production, Alexander said.

It's an achievable goal, he said. American utilities built 100 reactors between 1970 and 1990 by using their own money, Alexander said. "Why can't we do it again?" he asked.

A clean energy advocacy group dismissed Alexander's proposal as too risky and unrealistic.

"It's the nuclear industry feeding at the trough that is provided by the U.S. taxpayer," said Sara Barczak, program director for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

Barczak cited a recent report by an economist at Vermont Law School that put the cost of building and operating 100 nuclear plants at $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion, much higher than what Alexander had projected.

She also questioned Alexander's argument that most of the plant costs would be borne by ratepayers.

"The whole point of these loan guarantees is that they are backed by U.S. taxpayers," she said. "These are really risky, high-cost projects. The default on these loan guarantees is as much as 50 percent.''

Related News

California lawmakers plan to overturn income-based utility charges

California income-based utility charges face bipartisan pushback as the PUC weighs fixed fees for PG&E,…
View more

How Energy Use Has Evolved Throughout U.S. History

U.S. Energy Transition traces the shift from coal and oil to natural gas, nuclear power,…
View more

As New Zealand gets serious about climate change, can electricity replace fossil fuels in time?

New Zealand Energy Transition will electrify transport and industry with renewables, grid-scale solar, wind farms,…
View more

New York and New England Need More Clean Energy. Is Hydropower From Canada the Best Way to Get it?

Canadian Hydropower Transmission delivers HVDC clean energy via New England Clean Energy Connect and Champlain…
View more

IEA: Asia set to use half of world's electricity by 2025

Asia Electricity Consumption 2025 highlights an IEA forecast of surging global power demand led by…
View more

Hydro-Québec will refund a total of $535 million to customers who were account holders in 2018 or 2019

Hydro-Québec Bill 34 Refund issues $535M customer credits tied to electricity rates, consumption-based rebates, and…
View more

Sign Up for Electricity Forum’s Newsletter

Stay informed with our FREE Newsletter — get the latest news, breakthrough technologies, and expert insights, delivered straight to your inbox.

Electricity Today T&D Magazine Subscribe for FREE

Stay informed with the latest T&D policies and technologies.
  • Timely insights from industry experts
  • Practical solutions T&D engineers
  • Free access to every issue

Download the 2026 Electrical Training Catalog

Explore 50+ live, expert-led electrical training courses –

  • Interactive
  • Flexible
  • CEU-cerified