Build What Works: Why America Should Deploy the AP1000—Now

America has a nuclear problem, but it’s not the one most people think.

The issue isn’t whether nuclear power can be safe, clean, or affordable. The issue is that the United States has lost the habit of building large, complex infrastructure at scale—especially nuclear plants. If we want reliable, zero-carbon electricity this decade, the right question is not “What’s the perfect reactor?” but “What can we build repeatedly, now?”

The answer already exists: the AP1000.

A Proven Design in an Unproven System

The AP1000 is a modern nuclear reactor designed to be safer and simpler than the plants built in the 1970s and ’80s. It relies on passive safety systems—gravity, natural circulation, and physics—rather than complex machinery and operator intervention.

Importantly, this design is already licensed and operating. It produces power today in multiple countries. In the U.S., two AP1000 units were recently completed in Georgia after a long and costly process that has become shorthand for “why America can’t build nuclear anymore.”

But that framing misses the real lesson.

Those delays weren’t caused by the reactor being unsafe or unworkable. They were caused by first-of-a-kind construction, broken supply chains, and a regulatory and contracting system that treats every plant as a bespoke megaproject.

In places where the same design was built repeatedly, results were dramatically better. Korea, for example, reduced the cost of each new reactor by over 50% from their first reactor in 1971 to 2008. And in China, "[t]he second series of Chinese AP1000 projects achieved a 48% reduction in average duration from first nuclear concrete to milestone completion and a 42% reduction in average duration between milestones compared to the first series."

Safety That Makes Sense to Non-Experts

One reason nuclear struggles politically is that its safety case often sounds abstract. The AP1000 helps fix that.

In plain terms: if something goes wrong, the reactor cools itself without electricity, pumps, or human intervention for days. Gravity and physics do the work. That doesn’t eliminate risk—but it reduces it in a way that’s easy to understand and explain.

This matters for public confidence, insurance, emergency planning, and political durability.

Big Power Solves Big Problems

Much of today’s nuclear debate focuses on small modular reactors. These are promising, but they are not yet widely deployed in any country, have not yet been built in the US, and they don’t replace the role of large coal and gas plants on the grid.

The AP1000 does.

Each unit produces roughly as much power as a large fossil plant, runs more than 90% of the time, and can operate for 60–80 years. That makes it ideal for:

• Replacing retiring coal plants
• Powering energy-intensive industry
• Supporting data centers and AI infrastructure
• Anchoring grids with reliable, zero-carbon baseload

If the goal is decarbonization that actually works, size matters.

Cost Is About Repetition, Not Perfection

Nuclear plants are expensive in the U.S. because we build them like custom yachts instead of commercial aircraft.

Every country that made nuclear affordable did the same thing:

• Pick a design
• Build many copies
• Learn and improve

The AP1000 was explicitly designed for this model, with factory-built modules and standardized layouts. The problem wasn’t the design—it was that America tried to relearn an industrial skill set from scratch while simultaneously changing rules mid-construction.

That’s not a reason to quit. It’s a reason to standardize and repeat.

This Is Industrial Policy That Actually Delivers

Deploying a fleet of AP1000s would do more than clean up the grid. It would:

• Rebuild domestic heavy manufacturing
• Create thousands of skilled, long-term jobs
• Reduce exposure to fuel price volatility
• Re-establish U.S. leadership in nuclear exports

Unlike many industrial policy ideas, this one produces a tangible product: electricity, every hour of every day.

The Real Choice

The choice is not between the AP1000 and some future, perfect reactor.

The real choice is between:

• Building proven nuclear plants now, or
• Replacing coal with gas and hoping future technologies arrive in time

If the U.S. wants reliable, clean power at scale—and wants to regain the ability to build major infrastructure—the AP1000 is the most practical place to start.

Not because it’s flawless.

But because it works.