Key Takeaways
- The U.S. Department of Energy is providing up to $4.4 billion in loans to restart three shuttered nuclear plants—Palisades (Michigan), Crane Clean Energy Center (Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania), and Duane Arnold (Iowa)—to restore a combined 2.25 GW of carbon‑free electricity, enough for roughly 2 million homes and businesses.
- All three facilities closed before their licenses expired because their power was deemed too expensive, but new long‑term power purchase agreements with Big Tech firms (Google, Microsoft) now guarantee a premium price for the output, primarily to supply energy‑intensive data centers and AI workloads.
- Restarting a decommissioned reactor is described as “relatively quick” and cheaper than building a new large reactor, though it requires recommissioning workers, updating training, securing fuel, and obtaining regulatory license renewal.
- Safety experts warn that many of the plants were built in the 1970‑1990 era and were not designed for today’s more frequent and severe extreme‑weather events linked to climate change, raising concerns about whether sufficient safety investments are being made.
- The Palisades plant is the furthest along in the restart process, having begun loading nuclear fuel in August 2024, though a tilted fuel assembly prompted a pause while investigators determine the cause; the plant must be in service by March 2027 under its power purchase agreements.
- Duane Arnold, Iowa’s only nuclear facility, suffered storm damage in a 2020 derecho but NextEra Energy’s CEO said officials “felt really good about the ability to bring it back,” with a target restart date of early 2029 under a joint effort with Google.
- The Crane Clean Energy Center on Three Mile Island, site of the nation’s worst commercial nuclear accident in 1979, is slated for restart under a 20‑year agreement with Microsoft; Constellation Energy plans to spend $1.6 billion and hopes to have the reactor online by 2027, supported by a $1 billion DOE loan.
- Critics, such as the Heritage Foundation’s Jack Spencer, argue that funneling federal dollars to these projects is a waste of taxpayer money given the strong market demand, while supporters like the Atlantic Council’s Jennifer Gordon view the financing as an effective lever to secure needed carbon‑free power.
- The World Nuclear Association acknowledges the milestone of potentially restarting a plant after decommissioning but stresses that preventing premature closures would be the preferable strategy, noting that several other countries have already refurbished or restarted reactors after long shutdowns.
Federal Loan Program Fuels Revival of Three Shuttered Reactors
The Department of Energy is spearheading an unprecedented financial push, offering as much as $4.4 billion in loans to revive three nuclear facilities that had been shut down before their operating licenses expired. The funds are earmarked for the Palisades Power Plant in Michigan, the Crane Clean Energy Center on Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island, and the Duane Arnold Energy Center in Iowa. Together, the plants could generate 2.25 gigawatts of electricity—sufficient to power roughly 2 million homes and businesses. This influx of capital aims to meet a growing national appetite for electricity, particularly from energy‑intensive sectors such as data centers and artificial‑intelligence infrastructure.
Economic Motivation Behind the Plant Closures
All three reactors ceased operations not because of safety violations or regulatory action, but because the electricity they produced was deemed too expensive compared with cheaper alternatives like wind and natural gas. As the article notes, “All three of the plants closed before their licenses expired, largely because the electricity they produced was considered too expensive.” The economic calculus has shifted, however, as long‑term contracts with major technology firms now promise a premium price for carbon‑free power, making the projects financially viable once again.
Big Tech’s Role in Securing Future Revenue
The revival effort is tightly linked to agreements with Big Tech companies that need vast amounts of reliable, zero‑carbon electricity for their data centers and AI workloads. NextEra Energy and Google have partnered to restart Duane Arnold by early 2029, with NextEra’s CEO John Ketchum declaring, “This is a perfect example of data centers paying their own way… We’re able to sign a long‑term contract with a hyperscaler for that project. So none of the costs are being paid by residential customers in Iowa.” Likewise, Microsoft has secured a 20‑year power purchase agreement with the Crane Clean Energy Center on Three Mile Island, underscoring how corporate demand is driving the nuclear renaissance.
Administrative Push for Nuclear Expansion
The Trump administration has been vocal about its desire to expand nuclear power, framing it as essential for bolstering American manufacturing and maintaining leadership in AI. Nuclear engineering expert Todd Allen of the University of Michigan observes, “There’s a demand in the country for more power… You have these assets that were previously hooked up. They were previously operable, and you can relatively quickly get them generating electricity again, compared to your other possibilities. For anyone who wants zero carbon, nuclear provides that. For the Trump administration, which really wants nuclear, this fits that story also.” This political backing has helped sustain the flow of federal loans and streamline regulatory considerations for the restart projects.
Restarting a Reactor Compared to Reviving a Car
Allen likens the process to “restarting a car that sat idle for a few years,” noting that while the basic idea is similar—ensuring the license is valid and all parts work—the scale and complexity are far greater. For a nuclear plant, owners must “bring nuclear workers back and ensure their training is current, make sure everything is working and that maintenance is up to date, ensure they have enough fuel and ask regulators to restore their operating license.” Although the undertaking involves many moving parts, Allen characterizes it as “relatively straightforward” compared with constructing a brand‑new reactor from scratch.
Safety Concerns Raised by Experts
Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, cautions that the taxpayer‑funded restarts must not overlook inherent safety risks. He points out that most U.S. plants were constructed between 1970 and 1990 and were engineered to withstand the natural‑disaster scenarios of that era. With climate change intensifying extreme weather events, Lyman warns, “It’s possible, if they set the right level of safety and spend the necessary funds to meet that, they could restore these plants to operable condition… That’s not happening at this point.” His critique highlights the need for rigorous safety upgrades alongside the mechanical recommissioning work.
Progress at the Palisades Plant
Among the three sites, Palisades is the most advanced in the restart timeline. Holtec International, which acquired the plant after Entergy exited the nuclear business, has begun loading nuclear fuel—a critical step toward recommissioning. However, the process was paused in August 2024 after a fuel assembly tilted from its upright position, prompting Holtec to investigate the cause before proceeding. The plant’s power purchase agreements require it to be in service by March 2027, and state officials in Michigan have encouraged the effort with additional funding to preserve local jobs and energy security.
Duane Arnold’s Path Back to Service
Iowa’s sole nuclear facility, Duane Arnold, began operations in 1975 and was slated for permanent closure in October 2020. A powerful derecho in August 2020 inflicted damage that accelerated its shutdown, but NextEra Energy’s CEO expressed confidence, stating officials “felt really good about the ability to bring it back.” The plant is slated for restart by early 2029 under a joint initiative with Google, which will purchase the output for its data‑center operations. The project illustrates how storm‑related damage does not necessarily preclude a return to service if sufficient investment and regulatory approval are secured.
Three Mile Island’s Crane Clean Energy Center Revival
The Crane Clean Energy Center on Three Mile Island carries the historical weight of the nation’s worst commercial nuclear accident in 1979, which destroyed one reactor and left a single unit operational. Constellation Energy announced in 2024 a plan to spend $1.6 billion to restart that remaining reactor under a 20‑year agreement with Microsoft, aiming for a return to service by 2027. The Department of Energy has backed the effort with a $1 billion loan, and Deputy Energy Secretary James Danly recently toured the site to monitor progress. The project seeks to transform a site once synonymous with nuclear risk into a source of reliable, carbon‑free power for the tech sector.
Debate Over Federal Financing
The use of taxpayer money to fund these restarts has drawn sharp reactions. Jack Spencer, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate and Environment, contends, “I can’t think of a worse use of taxpayer money than using it to restart reactors. These are low‑risk projects where there is a massive demand for the energy, so there is no reason to funnel federal dollars to these companies.” In contrast, Jennifer Gordon, who directs the Atlantic Council’s Nuclear Energy Policy Initiative, praises the approach: “I think it’s a terrific way of leveraging federal financing to get needed electricity.” This dichotomy reflects broader debates about the appropriate role of government in supporting energy infrastructure versus leaving investment to market forces.
Industry Perspective on Preventing Premature Closures
The World Nuclear Association acknowledges the significance of potentially bringing a plant back online after decommissioning, noting that Palisades could become “the first nuclear plant in the world to resume generating power after beginning the decommissioning process.” However, the group stresses that “preventing them from closing prematurely would be the best option.” It points out that several nations—including Canada, Armenia, Belgium, Japan, India, and South Korea—have already restarted or refurbished reactors after long-term shutdowns, suggesting that the U.S. effort aligns with a global trend of re‑valuing existing nuclear assets rather than abandoning them outright.
This summary condenses the original reporting while preserving key facts, expert commentary, and illustrative quotations, and it adheres to the requested structure with bolded sub‑headings for each paragraph.
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-10-16/three-shuttered-nuclear-plants-could-soon-power-millions-of-homes-ai-data-centers