Nuclear Energy in a Climate Change Context: Current Appropriations for Nuclear Energy Development
Updated May 15, 2024
Nuclear Energy in a Climate Change Context: Current
Appropriations for Nuclear Energy Development
The potential role of nuclear energy in mitigating climate
electrification and alternative energy sources has been seen
change has been a significant element of recent
as a mechanism for GHG emissions reduction.
congressional discussions about energy and environmental
policy. For example, Senate Environment and Public Works
Rising U.S. electricity demand could pose additional
Committee Chairman Tom Carper at a committee hearing
challenges. Some stakeholders in the electricity sector have
in April 2023 stated, “As many of you know, I believe that
raised concerns that increases in electricity demand,
safe nuclear power plays an essential role in our efforts to
including those of data centers, and the effects of a
address the greatest challenge of our time, the climate
transition to lower carbon electricity generation could affect
crisis.” Other Members of Congress have expressed
electric grid reliability.
opposition to nuclear power over concerns that include
safety, cost, and the risk of storage of spent nuclear fuel.
Potential Role of Nuclear Power
Supporters of nuclear energy contend that nuclear energy
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42)
could contribute to bringing the United States onto a
includes more than $5 billion in new funding and transfers
decarbonization trajectory consistent with its 2050 net-zero
for advanced reactors and fuel, as well as support for
GHG emissions goal. Proponents say this could be
existing civilian nuclear power. Nuclear energy is also
accomplished, for example, by increasing nuclear-generated
included as a consideration in the Biden Administration’s
electricity and using nuclear reactor heat for industrial
Long-Term Strategy for the United States on climate
processes, such as the production of hydrogen, replacing
change.
equivalent energy from fossil fuels.
U.S. Climate Strategy
Increasing the role of nuclear power would likely involve
Human-caused emissions increase the levels of greenhouse
building new nuclear generating capacity both to replace
gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere, causing global average
existing, aging nuclear reactors and to create a net increase
temperature increases, with a corresponding increase in the
in nuclear generating capacity. Some nuclear power
net negative effects of climate change. Average global
advocates state that such efforts would be facilitated by
temperatures have increased by approximately 1.0 C since
the preindustrial period, with corresponding identified
• using standardized reactor designs, such as small
climate-driven impacts.
modular reactors (SMRs), that could be built in series to
achieve construction economies of scale;
A scientific consensus exists that reducing net global GHG
emissions to zero (net zero) by 2050 is consistent with a
• increasing the capability and capacity of the nuclear
greater than 50% chance of limiting global temperature
workforce and supply chains;
increases to 1.5 C. The Long-Term Strategy includes a
goal of reducing U.S. GHG emissions to net zero by 2050,
• developing advanced reactors that could be smaller,
as a contribution to limiting climate-driven impacts.
safer, and less expensive than existing nuclear
technology; and
As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), the United States submitted a
• using nuclear fuel developed for enhanced safety and
Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) document with
requiring less frequent reactor refueling.
the goal of reducing U.S. GHG emissions by 50%-52% by
2030 compared with 2005. All pathways described in the
Some environmental advocates have questioned the use of
Long-Term Strategy that achieve net-zero U.S. GHG
nuclear energy to contribute to mitigating climate change.
emissions by 2050 incorporate achieving the 2030 U.S.
Such groups raise concerns about nuclear energy that
NDC GHG emissions reduction goal.
include cost, timing, safety, whether nuclear power’s life-
cycle carbon emissions are as low as those from renewable
Many factors contribute to the U.S. emission of GHGs. The
energy technologies, and nuclear weapons proliferation.
pace of U.S. GHG emissions reduction has not occurred,
and is not currently projected to occur, at a rate that some
The construction of nuclear power plants often has been
experts assess is in line with meeting these stated climate
subject to large cost overruns and schedule delays,
goals. Emissions reductions in industrial processes,
sometimes leading to the abandonment of a project.
transportation, and other sectors have proven challenging.
Recently completed (and proposed) U.S. nuclear projects
Replacement of certain fossil fuels with low-carbon
have relied at least partly on tax credits, government grants,
and other assistance to be economically viable. Concerns
https://crsreports.congress.gov
link to page 2 Nuclear Energy in a Climate Change Context: Current Appropriations for Nuclear Energy Development
have been raised about the cost-effective construction of
appropriated $2.477 billion for the DOE Advanced Reactor
nuclear energy projects and whether financing other efforts
Demonstration Program from FY2022 to FY2026. Under
to reduce GHG emissions might be more effective.
that program, DOE is paying up to 50% of the costs of two
advanced reactor demonstrations, one each in Wyoming
Proponents of funding for nuclear energy point to the
and Texas. In addition, through IIJA, Congress appropriated
operating characteristics of nuclear power plants that can
$6 billion over the same period for Civil Nuclear Credits to
contribute to electric reliability, including their ability to
support existing nuclear power plants at risk of closing for
operate constantly and support voltage and frequency levels
financial reasons. Most of the Civil Nuclear Credit funding
on the grid. Some lower cost non-emitting resources, such
was not used for that purpose due to a number of factors,
as wind and solar electricity generation, do not inherently
including rising wholesale electricity prices, state support,
operate this way, potentially limiting their ability to supply
and federal tax credits provided to nuclear plants in the
large shares of electricity generation without the use of
Inflation Reduction Act (IRA; P.L. 117-169).
additional technologies such as large-scale energy storage.
Table 1. FY2024 Nuclear Energy Appropriations
The time required to site, build, permit, test, and
Funding Source
$ (in millions)
operationalize nuclear plants—more than 14 years by one
environmental group’s estimate—may be too long for
P.L. 118-42 Nuclear Energy Account
1,685
nuclear power to make a meaningful contribution to climate
P.L. 118-42 Transfer to SMRs
950
change mitigation. Proposed changes, such as standardized
designs, aim to shorten these timelines.
P.L. 118-42 Transfer to Nuclear Fuel
2,720
Programs
In the wake of incidents at nuclear power plants at Three
Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, some
P.L. 117-58 IIJA Advanced Reactor
600
environmental groups have raised concerns about the safety
Demonstration Program
of nuclear energy and its expansion. Concerns have also
P.L. 117-169 IRA Advanced Nuclear
700
been raised about the safety of the long-term storage of the
Fuel Program for FY2022-FY2026
spent nuclear fuel produced by nuclear reactors.
Sources: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42); IRA
Life-cycle analysis has been used to compare GHG
(P.L. 117-169); and IIJA (P.L. 117-58).
emissions from nuclear energy production with emissions
Notes: Nuclear fuel transfers are subject to implementation of
from renewable energy sources. The life-cycle emissions
nuclear fuel import sanctions on Russia, which were subsequently
from nuclear energy production include mining, milling,
imposed by the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act (P.L. 118-
and transporting nuclear fuel, as well as the emissions
62). SMR = small modular reactor.
associated with waste management and the construction of
nuclear facilities. A National Renewable Energy Laboratory
The FY2024 Consolidated Appropriations Act transferred
study found that life-cycle GHG estimates for nuclear
$950 million from IIJA’s Civil Nuclear Credit program to
power were similar to those for most renewable energy
support SMR deployment and university reactor safety
sources and a fraction of those for fossil fuels.
training. The FY2024 act also transferred $2.72 billion from
the Civil Nuclear Credit program to a DOE program to
Nuclear Energy Current Appropriations
support domestic production of enriched uranium to fuel
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is the primary
existing and advanced reactors, contingent on sanctions on
agency that carries out federal civilian nuclear energy
Russian nuclear fuel imports, which were subsequently
programs (see Table 1). Major nuclear energy programs
imposed by the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act
include advanced reactor research, development, and
(P.L. 118-62). The transferred funding is in addition to
demonstration; nuclear production of hydrogen; advanced
$700 million for nuclear reactor fuel provided in the IRA
nuclear fuel availability; and research on the operation and
for FY2022-FY2026.
safety of existing reactors.
DOE nuclear energy funding supports the development of
Funding for those activities is included in DOE’s Nuclear
some of the components, particularly advanced reactor
Energy appropriations account, which received $1.685
technology and fuel, that might be used to increase nuclear
billion in the FY2024 Consolidated Appropriations Act,
power capacity above current levels. Successful
which also included a major transfer of previously
demonstration projects could contribute to the U.S.
appropriated nuclear funding as described below. The
achievement of net-zero GHG emissions by 2050, although
nuclear energy account increased by $212 million (14%)
nuclear energy expansion also raises other policy concerns.
over the FY2023 amount.
Jonathan D. Haskett, Analyst in Environmental Policy
Congress has provided additional funding for DOE nuclear
Mark Holt, Specialist in Energy Policy
energy activities through supplemental appropriations bills
and advance appropriations in the Infrastructure Investment
IF12636
and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58). Through IIJA, Congress
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Nuclear Energy in a Climate Change Context: Current Appropriations for Nuclear Energy Development
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF12636 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED