Updated June 11, 2018

United States

  • EP finds that the U.S. is at moderate to very high risk of losing 71.5 GW of nuclear energy between today and 2030, and is likely or very likely to add 2 GW of new nuclear by 2030.

  • The U.S. generated 806 terawatt-hours (TWh, net) of nuclear electricity in 2017, nearing the historic peak of 807 TWh of nuclear generation in 2010, and a 4.5 percent change from the recent historic low of 770 TWh in 2012.

  • Nuclear comprised 20.0 percent of U.S. electricity in 2017, which is slightly below its historical peak share of 20.1 percent in 2001, but up from 19.0 percent in 2012.

  • The share of U.S. electricity coming from clean energy sources rose from 26.6 percent in 2008 to a peak of 36.2  percent in 2017.

  • An 8.3 percent share of U.S. electricity came from solar and wind in 2017, which constitutes 22.8 percent of total electricity from clean energy sources.

  • Wind and solar receive, respectively, 17 and 140 times more in federal subsidies than nuclear.

  • Thirty states have mandates to deploy clean energy that exclude nuclear.

  • It would take 12 years to replace the 120 billion kilowatt-hours of yearly production from the eleven at-risk nuclear plants with wind and solar, and 81 years to replace the entire reactor fleet.
  • Over 150% more nuclear capacity has been cancelled or killed than ultimately built in the United States.
  • In July 2017, utilities announced their decision to halt construction of the twin-reactor V.C. Summer project in South Carolina. The two nuclear reactors would generate 18 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity annually, replacing 86 percent of South Carolina’s electricity from coal.
  • Dozens of climate scientists and conservationists urged former president Barack Obama to do everything in his power to protect and expand America's largest source of clean energy. They have also written to President Donald Trump and the leaders of large environmental organizations.

Click on a state to find out more about its clean energy crisis


Reasons that US nuclear plants are at risk of early closure

  1. Discriminatory policies

  2. Public fears and concerns

  3. Cheap natural gas

Prematurely Closed

  1. Vermont Yankee, Vermont
  2. San Onofre, California
  3. Kewaunee, Wisconsin
  4. Crystal River, Florida
  5. Ft. Calhoun, Nebraska
Energy Progress Tracker (+ Nuclear At Risk) Extract.001.jpeg

Premature Closures Announced

  1. Indian Point, New York
  2. Pilgrim, Massachusetts
  3. Oyster Creek, New Jersey
  4. Diablo Canyon, California
  5. Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania
  6. Palisades, Michigan

High Risk of Premature Closure before 2025

  1. Beaver Valley
  2. Braidwood
  3. Byron
  4. Columbia
  5. Comanche Peak
  6. Cook (Donald C. Cook)
  7. Cooper
  8. Davis Besse
  9. Dresden
  10. Duane Arnold
  11. Fermi
  12. Hope Creek
  13. LaSalle
  14. Limerick
  15. Millstone
  16. Monticello
  17. Peach Bottom
  18. Perry
  19. Point Beach
  20. Prairie Island
  21. Salem
  22. Seabrook
  23. South Texas Project
  24. Susquehanna
  25. Wolf Creek