I remember when Game of Thrones was at the height of its popularity and its catchphrase seemed to be plastered everywhere I looked: “Winter is coming.” Today a similarly ominous refrain is echoing across the energy sector: Data centers are coming.

A data center is a physical location that houses servers and related hardware that process, store, and transmit digital information. As artificial intelligence use expands, demand for computing power is also rising at a feverish pace, driving the need for more and more energy-intensive data centers.

As in Game of Thrones, there is a certain mystery surrounding how dire the situation truly is.

In April 2024, Goldman Sachs forecast that data centers would rise from 2.5% to 8% of all U.S. electricity usage by 2030. However, Google recently reported a 33-fold reduction in their energy usage for AI text prompts in a single year. It is difficult to predict how much more energy will be needed in the coming years.

Current Missouri law protects average ratepayers from “any unjust or unreasonable costs from service to such customers [such as data centers].” However, this does not mean none of the burden of building new generation capacity will fall on ratepayers, and an overbuild based on overly aggressive demand projections could leave them paying for unused assets.

On the other hand, failure to build sufficient power supply (whether due to demand miscalculation or delays in constructing multiple plants) could cause Missouri to miss out on significant investment in the state. Worse, an underbuild could create real reliability concerns. There is real tension here, and a great deal of pressure to predict and build effectively.

Fortunately, there is a policy that could help alleviate some of this pressure: consumer regulated electricity (CRE).

The premise of CRE is fairly straightforward: allow consumer-regulated electricity utilities (CREUs) that are disconnected from the ratepayer-supported grid to create “private energy islands” for the largest new customers (such as data centers). This approach makes sense for two reasons:

1. The anticipated surge in demand is expected to be fueled by a small number of users. By isolating the electricity supply of these customers from the ratepayer-supported grid, CRE can help shield everyday customers from spikes in energy prices.
2. The increase in demand is predicted, but it isn’t certain. CRE ties both the risk and the possible rewards of building new power plants to the companies that will use the resulting energy.

This year, New Hampshire passed a law to allow CREUs to generate, transmit, distribute, and sell electricity as long as they operate independently from existing utilities and do not serve the general public (CREUs are still subject to appropriate oversight, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for nuclear plants). Missouri could do something similar, and there are many reasons to do so.

#1: Protecting Ratepayers from Risk

If the projected surge in electricity demand materializes, CRE could help lessen the severity of rate increases by allowing some large customers to be served by independent CREUs. Because these facilities are privately financed and serve only their customers, their costs would not be spread across all ratepayers. If electricity demand falls short of projections, then the excess capacity will have been a poor investment.

#2: Accelerating Capacity Buildout and Investment

 Missouri needs to build new generation capacity. In a permission-first, regulated environment, that process can be slow. Letting CREUs build and operate their own generation facilities could help keep economic development from being constrained by red tape.

Further, CREUs could offer more tailored payment structures and allow companies to align their energy sources with their own environmental or strategic goals—without forcing all ratepayers to work toward those same goals.

#3: Alleviating Pressure

Not only does Missouri face new demand growth, but our two largest electric utilities are dealing with coal-plant retirements. This transition would be challenging even without a new surge in demand. CREUs would allow utilities to focus more on serving their current customers.

CRE could be an ideal response to an abrupt surge in energy demand driven by a narrow set of customers. It would provide price security to everyday ratepayers, give data centers control over their power supply, and decrease the need for governments to predict future energy demand. Data centers are coming, and CRE is worth exploring as a way for Missouri to prepare for them.

The post Data Centers Will Require Innovation in Missouri’s Energy Sector appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Rising electricity demand and retiring coal plants put Missouri at risk of higher prices and unreliable power.

The Solution

Create a nuclear advisory council and explore consumer-regulated electricity (CRE) to position Missouri for next-generation nuclear power.

Key Facts

• Nuclear energy is reliable, powerful, and clean.
• 71% of Americans agree that the United States should “definitely build more nuclear power plants in the future,” up from 47% in 1998.
• Businesses rank energy availability among their top priorities in site-selection decisions.

The Growing Demand for Nuclear Energy

Nuclear power has played a pivotal role in meeting historical energy needs. Today, electricity demand is growing and the primary drivers are well known: data centers, artificial intelligence, and industrial manufacturing.

Amid rising demand, nuclear energy has emerged as a rare point of political agreement, as both the Biden and Trump administrations have endorsed more nuclear power—with the latter issuing pivotal executive orders to bring long-needed reform. Outside the Oval Office, the ADVANCE Act (for nuclear energy) flew through the Senate (88-2) and the House (393-13) before being signed by President Biden.

Missouri has long possessed unique strengths to lead in nuclear energy, but now, national-level momentum and reform have created new opportunities.

A Missouri Nuclear Advisory Council

Tennessee’s nuclear advisory council has seen tremendous success since its creation by executive order in 2023.

Missouri could form a similar council to unite the state’s brightest minds in the energy sector to identify regulatory, workforce, and educational challenges and strengths while highlighting opportunities such as coal-to-nuclear transitions—at no cost to taxpayers.

The council could reduce risk and uncertainty for both international and domestic developers by providing centralized and accessible information, as well as clearly signaling the state’s resolve and intentions to be a dedicated partner in nuclear development.

Bringing the Free Market into Energy

Consumer-regulated electricity (CRE) is an emerging policy that would allow off-grid electricity providers to build their own power plants and transmission lines to serve new customers faster and with less red tape. To be free from Missouri Public Service Commission (MPSC) regulations, CRE providers would need to be unconnected to the regular grid and only serve new, large industrial and commercial customers. These providers would still be subject to federal regulation from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other federal agencies.

CRE could help Missouri meet demand growth, attract investment by companies quickly seeking stable energy, lower costs for utilities and ratepayers, and spur innovation.

To allow CRE, Missouri would need to modify state statute such that new off-grid electricity providers are not subject to monopoly regulation (assuming they are unconnected to existing infrastructure, do not cross state lines, and only serve large customers). New Hampshire moved forward with CRE in 2025. Missouri could do so as well.

Policy Recommendations

• Establish a Missouri Nuclear Advisory Council.
• Through CRE, inject market forces into the energy sector by exempting off-grid electricity providers from MPSC monopoly regulation.

The post Nuclear Energy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While no site has yet been selected for a TerraPower reactor, lessons from Wyoming and recent federal reforms offer clues about what might come next. As I have written before, the federal government has put extensive emphasis on converting retired coal plants into advanced nuclear reactors. These conversions, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, can save up to 35% on construction costs and retain much of the existing workforce. In Wyoming, TerraPower is currently building a reactor on a former coal site, and it would not be a surprise to see Kansas follow suit. This model could highlight a potential path forward for nuclear adoption in the historically coal-dominant Missouri.

Federal Reform and Cost Savings for Coal-to-Nuclear Transitions

The concept of coal-to-nuclear has drawn bipartisan attention in Washington, D.C., and has been codified in the recent ADVANCE Act, which directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop and implement strategies to enable more efficient licensing reviews for converting former coal plants and other former industry infrastructure into nuclear reactor sites.

A report prepared by experts at the Idaho, Oak Ridge, and Argonne National Laboratories found that these projects can achieve significant savings by repurposing existing infrastructure, such as steam-cycle components, since both nuclear and coal are thermal power plants that rely on generating steam to turn a turbine.

Missouri’s Long History with Coal and Transitioning Our Workforce

Coal has long been king in Missouri. Despite recent closures, Missouri remains the fourth most reliant state on coal, with coal supplying 57% of electricity generation in 2024. That legacy presents both a challenge and an opportunity.

Missouri has several coal plant sites that could be strong candidates for advanced nuclear conversion. A study from Oak Ridge National Laboratory identified three Missouri coal power plant sites (retired or slated for retirement between 2020 and 2040) as suitable for hosting a number of reactors.

Not only is there an opportunity to make use of our physical infrastructure, but Missouri can also use our existing workforce. The U.S. Department of Energy notes that many coal-plant and nuclear-plant jobs share identical or similar occupation codes, meaning a large portion of the existing workforce could transition with minimal retraining.

A Nuclear Advisory Council Could Help Identify Steps for Missouri

Another way to better identify potential nuclear sites is by creating a nuclear advisory council. If Missouri brought together the best and brightest minds in nuclear energy to discuss our unique opportunities, analyze trends in federal regulation, and address our state’s weaknesses, the Show-Me State could become a significant player in nuclear development.

Kansas is moving along in its process. Let’s hope the Show-Me State doesn’t let this same opportunity pass it by.

Interested in Nuclear Energy in Missouri?

Read my recent report, Connecting Nuclear Energy’s Past and Present: Guiding Missouri’s Future, here.

The post Considering Coal-to-Nuclear Transitions in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Below are some new directives that could be relevant to our state’s energy future.

Expediting Nuclear Construction at Federal Sites

One order calls for the deployment of advanced nuclear reactors at both military installations and Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, with timelines that call for completion of the projects near the end of President Trump’s term. To support these goals, the Secretaries of Energy and Defense are required to collaborate with the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality to apply existing and establish new exclusions to certain requirements from the onerous National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

If next-generation reactors are brought online, then this could trigger a broader wave of nuclear construction across the country, as another order requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to “establish an expedited pathway to approve reactor designs that the DoD or DOE have tested and demonstrated.”

Essentially, it seems the administration is trying to lighten the load of nuclear regulation for the DoD and DOE, and if they succeed with these new reactors, then utilities and developers could follow in their footsteps.

Reevaluating Longstanding Regulation and Radiation Standards

One of the primary barriers to new nuclear development has been construction costs. Many of these costs have stemmed from the adoption of NEPA and the incident at Three-Mile Island (TMI) creating new, stringent regulations.

One study notes that for reactors already under construction when the accident at TMI occurred, median costs were almost three times higher and plants took almost twice as long to complete (not including costs of interest, delays, etc.) than plants that received their operating licenses before TMI. NEPA also had a similar, yet smaller, effect on construction costs and timelines.

To address these issues, another order calls for sweeping reform of the NRC’s operations and regulations. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is directed to help reorganize the NRC in order to better support innovation and expedite licensing.

Reform is also targeted at the longstanding radiation standards established in the 1970s. To oversimplify, these standards assume there is no safe threshold of radiation exposure, even those below levels that naturally occur in the environment. Essentially, if a nuclear developer can reasonably lower its levels of radiation exposure, it should, regardless of cost or relative risk. These policies have contributed to rising costs and a lack of predictability in both the licensing and construction process. The new executive orders direct the NRC to consider adopting a fixed and predictable exposure threshold, which should improve the environment for financial investment in nuclear.

These are just some of the key changes that are occurring in nuclear energy. If Missouri is to take part in the industry’s growing resurgence, we should be paying close attention to these developments. One way to do this is by establishing a Missouri nuclear advisory council. Such a council could bring experts together to present critical information for new development, assess emerging opportunities, and identify areas for improvement within the complex and rapidly changing nuclear landscape.

Listed are all four executive orders, each issued on May 23, 2025:

(1) Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security

(2) Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base

(3) Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(4) Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy

The post What Could New Executive Orders on Nuclear Mean for Missouri? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Today, many Missourians receive electricity from state-approved monopoly utilities, which own and manage the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity for their customers within exclusive service territories. Transitioning to a retail competition system would shift the ownership of generation from state-approved monopolies to private entities competing to sell power, while transmission and distribution would remain under utility control.

Responding to Change

The energy sector is in a state of flux, with several critical uncertainties lingering:

• How accurate are current energy demand forecasts?
• Will technological advancements from artificial intelligence significantly reduce energy consumption, and if so, how soon?
• What is the trajectory of electric vehicle adoption?
• How will the Trump administration’s regulatory reforms, such as recent changes at the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), impact the coal industry?
• Will the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) enact needed reform?

These unknowns highlight the challenges of relying on a regulated monopoly model, where long-term infrastructure planning is guided by government oversight rather than market signals. Competitive markets, on the other hand, offer greater adaptability. For example, the rise of hydraulic fracturing led to significantly lower natural gas prices over the last decade. Customers in competitive markets experienced the benefits of low gas prices sooner than customers in monopoly markets did.

Additionally, in a competitive market, private suppliers, not ratepayers, bear more financial risk of failed energy investments. If there is a significant cost overrun or if a project fails to come online, customers have less exposure as they can switch to another supplier or remain insulated through competitively priced default service (if they do not select a supplier).

Further Considerations

Despite the benefits of retail competition at the state level, other free-market reforms are needed. Energy regulation is complex, with overlapping layers of subsidies, taxes, and federal mandates distorting market forces. A truly free and competitive energy market would require broader regulatory reforms at the federal level to ensure private developers can better respond to market demand.

Another key consideration is the role of incumbent utilities in a competitive system. House Bill 417 requires utilities to divest their generation assets before retail choice begins, but it grants them discretion in how they do so. Utilities like Ameren could choose to sell their power plants to unaffiliated private developers or transfer them to a newly formed competitive affiliate, as long as the transaction occurs at fair market value and receives commission. As Missouri considers this transition, it will be important to define the appropriate role of former monopolies in a newly competitive market.

Retail competition is not a silver bullet, but it could introduce market forces to a historically insulated energy sector. Missouri policymakers ought to consider how implementing retail competition might work, and what potential barriers exist at both the state and federal levels.

The post Retail Competition in the Energy Market appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Managing this problem in the current system that is dominated by monopolies is difficult. But what if market forces could be infused into our current system to help address new demand?

An Introduction to Consumer Regulated Electricity (CRE)

One potential policy solution that could complement Missouri’s current system is consumer regulated electricity (CRE). While still a developing idea, CRE is worth considering as Missouri navigates an uncertain and potentially very costly energy future.

In theory, CRE would allow private investors to create new, independent electric power systems (both generation and transmission) using their own capital. These private grids would be scaled to specifically meet new demand growth from large consumers. In order for a CRE entity to operate appropriately, it would need to be free from restrictions placed by the Missouri Public Service Commission (MPSC). That means CREs would need to be unconnected to the regular grid and only serve new industrial and large commercial customers.

It should be noted that these CRE entities would still be subject to federal regulations, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for nuclear projects. These entities would still need to meet federal safety standards.

Considering the Benefits of CRE in Missouri

Travis Fisher of the CATO Institute argues that these private grids—partly free of the massive regulatory red tape for utilities—could be developed more quickly, infusing needed competition and innovation into the energy sector. As “private energy islands” for new, large energy consumers, CREs could potentially relieve strain on the primary grid and ratepayers. Rather than relying on ratepayers to fund new power plants to accommodate rising industrial demand, the market could provide that solution.

This idea aligns with growing momentum in the private sector to pair small modular reactors with corporations (Google, Microsoft, Meta) urgently seeking energy sources tailored to their needs. CRE could allow the free market to guide this practice, and potentially, more quickly match demand with supply as companies would not be subject to current MPSC regulations that limit competition. This could be a boon for economic development in Missouri.

In theory, CRE would not tear down Missouri’s existing framework, but rather, complement it and allow private developers to target growing energy demand from the largest consumers, which are causing the most concern about reliability.

How Could We Potentially Bring this to Missouri?

Bringing CRE to the Show-Me State would likely require a modification of state statute to declare that CRE entities—if they are not connected to existing infrastructure and only serve large, industrial customers—are not subject to state regulation. New Hampshire is one state considering this concept. While further study is needed, CRE is a compelling idea that our lawmakers ought to consider.

The post Weighing Consumer Regulated Electricity to Meet Energy Demand Growth appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Recently, the White House unveiled its detailed framework for deploying nuclear energy, which emphasized the need for nuclear power in America’s future. This plan included an ambitious target to triple U.S. nuclear capacity by 2050. While this specific plan may not survive the transition, the sentiment is likely to endure.

Bipartisan Support for Nuclear

Both sides of the aisle recognize the potential in an American nuclear resurgence, albeit with different motivations. Part of the reason the Biden administration supports nuclear energy is because of climate change. Ambitious emissions goals are difficult to achieve without nuclear energy. The previously mentioned report argues:

Expanding domestic nuclear energy production has a key role to play in helping to avoid the worst impacts of climate change by enabling the nation to achieve a net-zero greenhouse gas emission economy no later than 2050. Nuclear power delivers safe, clean, reliable, and affordable electricity.

The Trump administration’s support hinges largely on reliability, capacity, and energy security. Members of the first Trump administration have advocated for keeping plants open, investing in SMRs (small modular nuclear reactors), and continuing to modernize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The president-elect recently affirmed this stance:

Starting on day one, I will approve new drilling, new pipelines, new refineries, new power plants, new reactors and we will slash the red tape. We will get the job done. We will create more electricity, also for these new industries that can only function with massive electricity.

Outside of the Oval Office, another notable example of nuclear momentum is the passage of the ADVANCE Act, which is designed to spur advanced nuclear construction and streamline regulations. This bill flew through Congress with an 88–2 vote in the Senate and a 393–13 vote in the House of Representatives before being signed by the president.

Bipartisan Action in Missouri

Nuclear energy is unique in that it is safe, powerful, and environmentally friendly. It is the most reliable energy source, and some claim it produces the lowest amount of greenhouse gas emissions over the lifecycle of the power plant. Public awareness of these benefits is increasing, as Bisconti Research found that favorability for nuclear energy increased from 49 percent in 1983 to 77 percent in 2024 among the U.S. public.

In the past, nuclear energy may have been viewed through a partisan lens, but today, it represents a solution to address some of our nation’s key concerns. This upcoming legislative session, lawmakers in Jefferson City should come together to craft meaningful policy that will help bring more nuclear power to the Show-Me State.

The post Nuclear Energy Is a Bipartisan Solution appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

You can read my past thoughts on the bill here and here.

Here is a summary of the policy changes in the ADVANCE Act:

1. Narrows which regulatory costs nuclear energy licensees have to pay (read more here).
2. Establishes an award program for pioneers in the advanced nuclear industry.
3. Streamlines the process to convert “covered sites” (land formerly used for coal plants, factories, etc.,) into nuclear reactor sites.
4. Mandates the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to expedite the “combined license” process for applicants building at a site where a nuclear plant currently operates or has previously operated.
5. Seeks to increase manpower at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
6. Updates the mission statement of the NRC to be more supportive of nuclear energy.

While the federal government got something done, Missouri missed an opportunity this past session to repeal its own burdensome anti-nuclear regulations. One particular letdown was the failure to revise the construction-works-in-progress (CWIP) law. You can read specifics on that policy here.

In 2022, Ameren Missouri (the state’s primary utility) relied on coal for 66 percent of its electricity generation. By 2045, Ameren plans to bring that number to zero. Missouri could mimic Wyoming and turn one of these soon to be “covered” sites into an advanced nuclear reactor site. The ADVANCE Act, if signed, will expedite this process in the future—just in time for our energy transition.

Additionally, there have past efforts to add another unit to the Callaway Nuclear plant, Missouri’s one and only commercial nuclear reactor. The ADVANCE Act would allow “combined licenses” mentioned above, which would make more units at the Callaway Plant eligible for a faster review.

Isn’t it time to pass nuclear reform in Missouri? The federal government has made its move—now it’s Missouri’s turn to repeal anti-nuclear regulations such as the CWIP law and perhaps form a Missouri Nuclear Energy Advisory Council (similar to Tennessee’s). Missouri leaders ought to ensure nothing stands in the way of strengthening our grid with clean, reliable, and powerful nuclear energy.

The post Congress Moves to Advance Nuclear Energy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This project marks the first time in about 40 years that a company has attempted to use an advanced nuclear reactor as a commercial power plant. Traditional light-water reactors have dominated the nuclear space, and they are usually characterized by enormous cooling towers.

The reactor being built in Wyoming can be ramped up to 500 MW when needed (enough to power 400,000 homes) and will cost around $4 billion to build. However, a decent chunk of those costs had to do with creating a design and getting the reactor itself approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If future projects use the same reactor design, they will not have to undergo that lengthy process, lowering the total cost.

Construction is supposed to take 5 years and the reactor is being built directly next to a decommissioning coal plant. The plan is to immediately transfer much of the existing infrastructure and manpower from the coal plant to the nuclear plant and create a seamless transition.

With a design like the one being built in Wyoming, the enormous cooling towers are not needed, as the reactor itself has a passive cooling system. On top of that, the reactor itself is smaller. In theory, this means that the design will be more easily replicable, as it is a smaller scale and can fit into more landscapes.

Construction is underway in Wyoming and momentum continues to build for the nuclear industry. Hopefully we can see Missouri take advantage of this trend in the near future—but to do that—we’ll need to straighten out our own state regulatory hurdles.

The post Bipartisan Momentum in Nuclear Energy Continues appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Advanced nuclear reactors are pre-fabricated (constructed off-site, which allows them to maintain the efficiency of a production line), so when reactor designs are approved, the same design can be used in numerous projects. By contrast, traditional reactors are typically custom-designed on-site. Private entities have been competing to develop the best reactor designs. However, many of these private entities struggle to acquire the necessary cash to propose a potential reactor design to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). NRC agents currently charge a billing rate of $290 per hour, with a review taking upwards of 18,000 hours, resulting in a typical review cost of $5,220,000! These costs place private developers in a difficult situation, as spending an immense amount of money on designing a reactor and paying regulators (who might reject the design) is a great risk. For example, Oklo Power (an American startup) submitted an application for a 1.5 MW microreactor, and had it denied after 22 months of review from the NRC.

The ADVANCE Act would shift responsibility for supervisory and nonsupervisory support costs, travel costs, training costs, and the administrative costs of  different government offices that provide logistical support to the NRC. These costs currently fall on the nuclear developer. In the current state of the bill, the federal government would compensate the NRC for these additional costs in connection with advanced nuclear reactors. Taxpayers should of course be wary of any proposal to subsidize private nuclear power providers, but in this case the money would be going to defray the expenses incurred by our government as the result of a truly burdensome set of federal regulations.

The ADVANCE Act could also expedite the conversion of brownfield sites (land formerly used for industry), particularly former (or closing) fossil fuel facility sites, into nuclear power sites. Pre-fabricated reactors are adaptable and well-suited to these sites; on the other hand, traditional nuclear plants need to be uniquely constructed to match the terrain where they will be located.

Lastly, the ADVANCE Act would provide additional funding (mainly to facilitate a new nuclear traineeship program) to the NRC in order to speed up the review process. In this industry, time truly is money, and costs soar when delays occur.

So the ADVANCE Act would make it easier to build out our nuclear capabilities. Why is that important? Increased nuclear power would help achieve three key goals: increasing power supply in the United States, increasing our country’s energy independence, and increasing the supply of reliable, emissions-free energy.

As a state-based think tank, we don’t often discuss bills in Congress. But if nuclear energy is going to make a resurgence in our country, reform at the federal level will be necessary. Whether the federal government passes this law or not, Missouri could capitalize on the bipartisan desire for clean, reliable nuclear energy and become a leader in the industry.

The post Oppenheimer Is Not the Only Interesting Thing in Nuclear this Summer appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This exemption would favor large, traditional nuclear power plants at the expense of cutting-edge nuclear energy technology—small modular reactors (SMRs). Putting aside the merits of the current monopoly structure—customers in other states benefit from competitive electricity markets—does it even make sense for a bill to promote traditional nuclear over SMRs?

Let’s put this in perspective. Few large, traditional nuclear power plants have been built nationwide in the past few decades. In recent years, multi-billion dollar cost-overrun debacles for new traditional nuclear plants in South Carolina and Georgia have put a damper on constructing new large nuclear plants. So what’s so special about SMRs?

SMRs are much smaller than traditional nuclear power plants (generating fewer than 200 megawatts of electricity per year) and are also cheaper to construct on a per-megawatt basis than traditional nuclear plants. NuScale Power, which is on track to receive the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s first construction approval of an SMR this August, expects its SMR to produce electricity for $65 per megawatt-hour. That price is competitive with electricity from natural gas plants, which are also “baseload” power providers. (Baseload power is reliable, around-the-clock power, as opposed to the intermittent power provided by solar and wind.)

SMRs are also safer than traditional nuclear plants. The traditional way of generating nuclear power is already the safest form of electricity production available, even when considering disasters like Chernobyl or Fukushima, but SMRs come with enhanced safety features. For instance, traditional nuclear power plants cool their reactors by circulating water via electricity, meaning that in the event of a natural disaster that removes all possibility of power (such as what happened in Fukushima in 2011), the reactor could malfunction. SMRs use natural circulation rather than power to cool the reactor, meaning that a disaster like Fukushima is even less likely to happen with SMRs, and it is already extraordinarily unlikely.

Their smaller size also means that SMRs may be deployed in places where it wouldn’t make sense to build an enormous, traditional nuclear power plant, such as in remote towns or industrial sites. SMRs can operate individually as well as being grouped together, again in contrast to traditional nuclear plants. This allows for more flexible operation and even expansion if population or industry requires it.

SMRs are nearing full approval by federal regulators and are already being built in several countries. Putting aside the concerns about the monopoly powers Missouri utilities currently have (which are not insignificant), wouldn’t Missouri be better off focusing on the future of nuclear energy technology rather than the past?

The post Suggested Change to Missouri’s Nuclear Construction Bill appeared first on Show-Me Institute.