The missing link in America’s nuclear energy future: Standardization at scale

The United States has embraced nuclear energy as a cornerstone of its future energy strategy. The challenge now is deploying it efficiently, affordably, and at the scale required to meet growing electricity demand.

In recent months, announcements supporting nuclear energy have come from nearly every corner of the U.S. energy sector – from executive actions and state initiatives to utility investments and technology partnerships.

Most recently, the U.S. Department of Energy announced a $17.5 billion conditional loan commitment to support the purchase of long-lead time items for up to 10 new AP1000 reactors across give project sites. The initiative aims to accelerate deployment timelines by as much as three years while rebuilding domestic manufacturing capacity. Importantly, the announcement reflects a growing recognition that nuclear deployment requires more than innovative technologies – it requires orderbooks or repeat construction programs that provide long-term certainty to suppliers and investors.

Historically, new nuclear builds have moved slowly in the United States and Europe, in large part due to high capital costs, lengthy construction timelines, and significant project risk. Today, a growing number of reactor designs are competing for limited customers and supply chain resources, making it difficult for manufacturers and investors to identify where to place long-term bets.

Recent analysis from Solestiss commissioned by the Nuclear Scaling Initiative (NSI) identified a fundamental coordination challenge in the U.S. nuclear industry: suppliers are hesitant to invest without durable demand signals, while utilities and industrial buyers are reluctant to commit to projects without confidence that the supply chain can deliver. The diversity of various reactor designs in the U.S. shows that the problem is not technology innovation, but rather the ability to standardize and repeat successful projects.

Building a nuclear energy assembly line

The contrast between the United Sates and China deployment of nuclear reactors in the past 15 years underscores the persistent challenge seen facing nuclear deployment in Western markets.

Earlier this year, China announced that it now has the industrial capacity to build as many as 50 reactors simultaneously, a feat that reflects decades of deliberate investment in nuclear manufacturing, workforce development, and standardized deployment programs. China currently has more reactors under construction than the rest of the world combined and accounts for nearly half of all global nuclear construction activity.

This capability did not emerge overnight, nor is it the result of technological innovation alone. It’s the product of a coordinated strategy centered on repeat builds, standardized reactor designs, long-term planning, and predictable demand signals for suppliers and workers.

While China may be the most recent example this approach is not new to the United States. In fact, the U.S. has successfully employed this approach decades ago through the Standardized Nuclear Unit Power Plant System, better known as SNUPPS.

Developed in the 1970s, SNUPPS represented a fundamentally different approach to nuclear deployment. Rather than treating every reactor as a unique infrastructure project, SNUPPS introduced a standardized design that could be replicated across multiple utilities and locations. Reactors would be built using nearly identical engineering specifications, licensing frameworks, procurement strategies, and construction practices.

The resulting consistency reduced uncertainty for utilities and suppliers alike. Standardized designs reduced engineering duplication, procurement efforts became more coordinated, and the NRC’s use of a single lead review team improved regulatory consistency even though licensing reviews were not yet fully standardized and projects still experienced significant schedule delays. These improvements nevertheless sent positive signals to the supply chain, encouraging investment in manufacturing capacity and workforce development. Most importantly, suppliers and workers gained confidence that investments made for one project would retain value across future projects, strengthening the business case for long-term capability building.

Ultimately, only two SNUPPS plants were completed – the Callaway Plant in Missouri and the Wolf Creek plant in Kansas. The failure of to complete a larger number of units was tied to decreasing energy demand and high inflation in the late 1970s, a regulatory framework that did not yet facilitate standardized licensing reviews, and owner requests to customize the standardized plant for each site. Despite these challenges, however, it was estimated that the use of standardized design and procurement practice saved customers at the time over $200 million dollars (over $650 million in 2026 dollars).

This principle of repetition has been central to nearly every successful industrial sector. Commercial aviation, shipbuilding, and semiconductor manufacturing all rely on standardization to lower costs and improve quality over time. Nuclear energy is no different. The economics of deployment only improve when companies move from one off projects to coordinated, repeated builds.

In many ways, DOE’s recent support for 10 new AP1000 reactors represents an attempt to revive some of the same principles that were first demonstrated by SNUPPS. Rather than financing a series of disconnected projects, the program will help create a pipeline for repeat builds based on a single, licensed reactor design. Regulatory modernization at the NRC will help resolve the licensing issues encountered by SNUPPs and commitments by utilities to a standardized design will alleviate issues of site-specific customization. Financing bulk purchases of long-lead components across multiple project sites will send a critical demand signal to manufactures that future orders are likely to materialize.

How we can build towards standardization in the U.S.

When developers, utilities, and governments commit to multiple reactor builds over time, they create a predictable pipeline of demand. Suppliers can then meaningfully invest in manufacturing capacity and workforce development. Labor forces can develop specialized expertise that transfers from one project to the next. Costs decline as experience accumulates, lessons are learned, and best practices are replicated.

Unfortunately, the current U.S. nuclear landscape remains highly fragmented.  Multiple developers are pursuing different technologies, utilities are approaching projects independently, and procurement strategies remain largely uncoordinated. This fragmentation increases both financial and execution risk by diluting learning and forcing suppliers to navigate multiple design requirements and qualification pathways. Instead of benefiting from repetition, many projects effectively become first-of-a-kind demonstrations. The result is longer timelines, higher costs, and greater uncertainty for investors and policymakers alike.

This fragmented approach also weakens the U.S.’s ability to compete globally. Countries that are successfully scaling nuclear energy, such as South Korea and China, have emphasized coordinated deployment strategies built around standardized reactor fleets. Their models have fostered stronger industrial ecosystems, more efficient construction practices, and clearer pathways for financing. The initial success of SNUPPS – which standardized the design for six reactor unites across four utilities in four states – and  the on-going success of other industries, including renewables, demonstrate that while innovation is valuable, it delivers meaningful deployment benefits only when paired with  a standardized and coordinated approach.

Creating the conditions for standardization will require deliberate action. Policymakers, utilities, developers, and suppliers should work together to:

• Coordinate procurement across multiple buyers and project sites;
• Support multi-unit and fleet-style development strategies;
• Provide financing mechanisms that reward repeat projects rather than one-off demonstrations;
• Establish predictable, efficient qualification pathways for suppliers; and
• Align workforce development efforts with anticipated deployment schedules.

The DOE’s support for 10 AP1000 reactors demonstrates that policymakers increasingly recognize the importance of coordinated deployment and supply chain certainty. The challenge now is ensuring that these projects become the beginning of a sustained program of repeat builds rather than a one-time effort. The future of American nuclear energy will not depend on how many reactor concepts exist on paper, but on whether the country can repeatedly deploy proven designs at scale.