|
|
| Fig. 1: One of the abandoned Satsop Nuclear cooling towers, now the Satsop Business Park. (Source: Wikimedia Commons) |
Driving from Aberdeen, WA to the state capital of Olympia, travelers undoubtedly notice two massive cement towers standing some distance from the highway, seen in Fig. 1. A quick Google search reveals these are relics of the defunct Satsop Nuclear Power Plant. Why were these towers built, and why do they not function today?
In the mid 20th century, Washington state industry was largely focused on electricity generation. In 1942, the Grand Coulee Dam was built on the Columbia River, and it now produces almost 7000 MW of electricity. [1] This is testament to the emphasis being placed on power generation in the state, particularly from sources other than coal. In addition, several organizations were focused on building power plants, paving the way for the Washington Public Power Supply Systems (WPPSS) creation. Washington's growing population and therefore forecast growth in electricity needs further fueled the fire for the development of more power plants. In the 1970s, power usage grew by 7% every year and this number was expected to increase. [2] Washington was not alone in turning to nuclear energy to meet its power needs in the 1970s. As of 2016, nearly 96% of total operating nuclear capacity in the country comes from plants built between 1970 and 1990. [3]
Due to the forecast need for increased electricity and atmosphere of heightened interest in nuclear energy, the state legislature created the WPPSS, a joint-operating public power agency. WPPSS set out to build five nuclear reactors, named Washington Nuclear Project Nos. 1-5 (WNP-1, etc.).
WNP-3 and WNP-5 were intended to be the Satsop Power Plant. They failed before they produced a single watt. The reasons for this failure are not necessarily scientific, but understanding the science behind nuclear power plants is important context.
 |
| Fig. 2: Pressurized water reactor diagram. (Courtesy of the DOE) |
There are two nuclear processes: fusion and fission. Fusion is when two nuclei collide and merge to create a heavier nucleus, generating energy in the reaction. Fusion is not currently a feasible way of producing energy. Fission is the process of splitting a heavier nucleus to create two lighter nuclei. Fission reactors convert the potential energy stored in nuclei into electrical energy. All commercial nuclear reactors today are fission reactors. In addition to two lighter nuclei, energy is a product of fission. For example, when bombarded with a neutron, uranium-235 produces approximately 200 MeV. [4] This is about 100 million times more energy produced from a single molecule than from burning one molecule of gasoline.
WNP-3 and WNP-5 were both pressurized water reactors, which operate as shown in Fig. 2, and construction began in 1977. They faced challenges from the start. WPPSS leaders were farmers and small businessmen, not nuclear power experts. They used three different designs among the five reactors, instead of sticking to one. They became bogged down by additional costs incurred due to increased government regulation after the Three Mile Island meltdown.
The late 20th century was plagued by massive, disastrous nuclear power plant failures such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Fortunately, WNP-1, WNP-3, WNP-4, and WNP-5 failed far before they could produce disasters of that scale. However, the economic casualties inflicted were, in many ways, their own disasters.
By 1982, the construction cost projection had increased grossly. See Table 1 for the initial and final construction costs of the five WPPSS projects. The initial costs total $6 billion, while the final costs reach $23.7 billion. [4] How did WPPSS underestimate its construction costs so greatly?
First, power needs did not increase as forecast. In the early 1970s, energy demand was growing by over 5% annually, but by the 1980s, it was only growing by 1.5% annually. [5] Further, construction was simply more expensive than expected. WPPSS was founded by small business owners and farmers who had no previous experience with nuclear power reactors, in a time when not much was known about nuclear power. While this error was egregious and costly in many ways, it was an honest mistake, made from ignorance, rather than malintent. [4] WPPSS cancelled both WNP-3 and WNP-5 in 1982, before either had been completed. Unfortunately, much of this funding was provided by bonds, so WPPSS defaulted on over $2 billion in bonds. At the time, this was the largest municipal bond default in history. [6] WNP-3 and WNP-5 were funded by bonds and therefore greatly affected the public when they failed; WNP-1 and WNP-4 remained out of the limelight because they were not involved in this default.
The question that remains is why WNP-2 succeeded when the others did not. While there are several reasons, it came down to money and time. WNP-2 was on track to be completed first and for the least amount of money. [4] WNP-2 was completed for just over $3 billion, whereas the other reactors were not completed and cost much more than that. For example, WNP-5 was almost twice the price of WNP-2 when it was canceled. WNP-5 was just 16% complete when it was cancelled, and WNP-3, the most complete, was still less than 75% complete. [7,8] So, when it was realized that funds were running low and electricity demand was not what had been forecasted, WNP-2 was the choice plant to survive. [9]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Table 1: WPPSS Project Costs. [4,9] |
The Satsop Nuclear Plant was never completed, but neither was it destroyed. The towers and surrounding infrastructure still stand in Grays Harbor County. Now, the buildings are the Satsop Business Park and offer diverse and unique spaces for businesses and more to use. [5] WPPSS became colloquially known as Whoops after the WNP-3 and WNP-5 failures. [2] Now it is Energy Northwest and still operates several energy projects in Washington. [4]
Washington Nuclear Project Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 were failures of planning, organization, finances, construction, legality, and more. They were not, however, failures of nuclear energy. In the words of Washington Governor John Spellman, "Good-faith people made poor decisions." [2] Nuclear energy can be used profitably and feasibly, although it carries potentially more complexity in politics, science, and economics than other energy sources. As we potentially enter an era of renewed interest in nuclear power, it is important to examine cases like WPPSS so they can be avoided in the future.
© Maya Mandyam. The author warrants that the work is the author's own and that Stanford University provided no input other than typesetting and referencing guidelines. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.
[1] "Grand Coulee Dam Statistics and Facts," U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, December 2021.
[2] C. Alexander, "Whoops! A $2 Billion Blunder: Washington Public Power Supply System," Time, 8 Aug 83.
[3] "Nuclear Energy and Climate Change Mitigation," Congressional Research Service, R48480, July 2025.
[4] D. Pope, Nuclear Implosions: The Rise and Fall of the Washington Public Power Supply System Cambridge University Press, 2008.
[5] "Sixth Northwest Conservation and Electric Power Plan," Northwest Power and Conservation Council, February 2010, Ch. 3.
[6] M. Blumstein, "The Lessons of a Bond Failure," New York Times, 14 Aug 83.
[7] "Status of Bonneville Power Administrations Efforts To Improve Its Oversight of Three Nuclear Power Projects," U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO RCED-84-27, August 1984.
[8] "Removing Nuclear Construction Authority From Joint Operating Agencies Created Under RCW 43.52.360," Senate Bill Report SB 5445, Senate Committee on Energy and Utilities, Washington State Legislature, 3 Mar 93.
[9] "Strategic Project Management Lessons Learned and Best Practices for New Nucleaer Power Construction," Nuclear Energy Institute, NEI 20-08, September 2025.
