# What Does It Really Take to Restart a Shut Nuclear Reactor?

Restarting a shuttered nuclear plant costs far more, takes far longer, and surfaces far more unknowns than any pre-acquisition inspection can capture — and [Holtec International](https://smrintel.com/companies/holtec-international)'s experience at the 789-MWe Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan is now the industry's most instructive case study in what can go wrong.

Palisades shut down in 2022 with the expectation that closure was permanent. Holtec reversed that plan and set out to achieve something the U.S. nuclear industry had never done: recommission a shut reactor. The company estimated the process would take roughly two years. That estimate was not met. Corrosion on the steam generators — the equipment that uses hot radioactive water to produce high-pressure steam — supply chain disruptions, a leaking underground water line, and the need for new valves all compounded into delays that Holtec's leadership now acknowledges were partly self-inflicted. The firm had not fully inspected the plant before purchasing it from Entergy, and, critically, had never previously operated a nuclear facility.

Despite that, Holtec holds a contractual deadline of March 2027 and plans to begin fuel loading as early as September 2026. Meanwhile, [Constellation Energy](https://smrintel.com/companies/constellation-energy)'s 835-MWe Crane Clean Energy Centre on the Three Mile Island site in Pennsylvania — where the operator has years of existing facility knowledge — is tracking toward restart as soon as next year.

The contrast between the two projects is the most important data point for any utility, investor, or DOE program manager evaluating the U.S. recommissioning pipeline.

---

## The Palisades Problem: First-Time Operator, Aging Plant, Unexpected Discovery

[Holtec International](https://smrintel.com/companies/holtec-international)'s general manager of plant operations, Jeff Borah, offered a candid self-assessment: "We didn't take the time to really plan out the whole project before we started doing work. It's like building a fire truck on your way to the fire."

That is an unusually frank admission for a nuclear operator, and it carries real regulatory and commercial implications. Palisades first commenced operations in 1971, meaning the plant is now more than five decades old. The steam generator corrosion discovered during the restart assessment is not surprising to anyone familiar with pressurized water reactor aging mechanisms — but it was apparently not fully anticipated in Holtec's pre-acquisition due diligence.

Holtec's president, Rick Springman, offered a partial defense: "There are some systems you can't really inspect until you start the project," noting that the turbine required dismantling over several months for full inspection. "The difference between building a new house and rehabbing an old house is there is going to be discovery," Springman said.

That framing is technically accurate. Certain components are inaccessible or in service-degraded states that only become visible under disassembly. But the counterargument — raised publicly by Michael J. Keegan, co-chairman of the environmental group Don't Waste Michigan — is that Holtec should have replaced the corroded steam generators outright rather than attempting repair. Springman responded that the generators have been extensively inspected and tested and that the company is "very comfortable with the safety of the component."

From a pure risk management standpoint, both positions have merit. Repairing versus replacing aged steam generators is a judgment call that reactor operators have navigated for decades. The difference at Palisades is that the operator making that judgment has no prior plant operating history.

---

## The Crane Clean Energy Centre: A More Navigable Path

Constellation Energy's approach at the Crane Clean Energy Centre illustrates why operator experience and plant condition matter enormously to recommissioning timelines and costs.

The reactor being rehabilitated at the Three Mile Island site was undamaged — a critical distinction from a plant that degraded over years of decommissioning preparation. Constellation has also owned and operated the facility for years, providing detailed institutional knowledge of the plant's systems, quirks, and maintenance history. The company is targeting restart as soon as next year.

This is the scenario that recommissioning advocates point to when arguing that restoring idle capacity is faster and cheaper than new build. And in Constellation's case, that argument has substance. But it is not universally applicable — and the Palisades experience is a corrective to anyone assuming all restarts will follow the Crane template.

NextEra's 615-MWe Duane Arnold plant in Iowa is also part of the Trump administration's recommissioning ambitions, though the source material does not detail its current status or timeline.

---

## Federal Support and Taxpayer Exposure

The Trump administration is providing billions of dollars in federal funding to companies pursuing reactor recommissioning, per the source. The May 2025 executive order "Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base" outlined targets including construction of 10 new large reactors and adding 5 GW of capacity to existing nuclear reactors by 2030.

On July 24, 2026, the Trump administration announced it had achieved [criticality](https://smrintel.com/glossary/criticality) in three new advanced test reactors by the July 4, 2026 target — a notable programmatic milestone, though the source does not identify which specific test reactors achieved that milestone.

The taxpayer exposure question is legitimate and deserves direct engagement. Federal loan guarantees and grants underwriting a first-time nuclear operator's recommissioning of a 55-year-old plant — one where the operator did not complete a full inspection before purchase — represent a different risk profile than funding an experienced utility's restart of an undamaged reactor it has operated for years. DOE's portfolio management of these projects should reflect that distinction.

---

## What This Means for the Broader Industry

The Palisades and Crane projects together define the realistic range of outcomes for nuclear recommissioning:

**Best case:** An experienced operator, an undamaged reactor, deep institutional knowledge of the plant, and a clear regulatory pathway. Crane is tracking toward this. Restart within roughly a year of serious recommissioning effort is plausible.

**Harder case:** A first-time nuclear operator, a plant that sat idle long enough to accumulate corrosion and degradation, incomplete pre-acquisition inspection, and supply chain gaps in a sector that never fully retained its manufacturing base. Palisades represents this scenario. Even with a March 2027 contractual deadline and federal funding support, the project has already exceeded initial duration estimates.

For [first-of-a-kind (FOAK)](https://smrintel.com/glossary/foak) nuclear projects of any type — whether recommissioning or new advanced reactor build — the Palisades experience reinforces a consistent pattern: discovery costs are real, schedule buffers are essential, and operator experience is not interchangeable with technical capability in other industries.

The broader U.S. nuclear [baseload power](https://smrintel.com/glossary/baseload) strategy depends on making recommissioning work as a bridge to new capacity. Palisades' difficulties do not invalidate that strategy — but they do argue for rigorous pre-qualification standards for operators taking on recommissioning projects with federal dollars, and case-by-case federal approval based on genuine plant condition assessment rather than political timeline pressure.

---

## Key Takeaways

- Holtec's Palisades restart (789 MWe) has taken longer than the originally estimated two years, delayed by corroded steam generators, supply chain issues, a leaking water line, and the need for new valves.
- Holtec targets fuel loading as early as September 2026 and a contractual deadline of March 2027 — the first-ever recommissioning of a previously shut U.S. reactor.
- Holtec had never operated a nuclear plant before acquiring Palisades, and its general manager acknowledged the company did not fully plan the project before beginning work.
- Constellation Energy's Crane Clean Energy Centre (835 MWe, Three Mile Island site) is on a faster track, benefiting from an undamaged reactor and years of operator familiarity with the facility.
- The Trump administration's May 2025 executive order targets 10 new large reactors and 5 GW of additional capacity at existing plants by 2030; three advanced test reactors reached criticality by July 4, 2026.
- Federal funding is underwriting these recommissioning projects, raising legitimate questions about taxpayer exposure relative to operator experience and plant condition.
- The two projects together define the realistic range of recommissioning outcomes — and argue for case-by-case federal approval based on thorough plant assessment.

---

## Frequently Asked Questions

**Has any U.S. nuclear plant ever been successfully restarted after permanent shutdown?**
The Palisades recommissioning is the first attempt to restart a U.S. reactor after it was shut down with the expectation of permanent closure. As of mid-2026, Holtec is targeting fuel loading in September 2026 and a full restart by March 2027 — but the restart has not yet been completed.

**Why did the Palisades restart take longer than expected?**
Holtec discovered corrosion on the steam generators, encountered supply chain disruptions, found a leaking underground water line, and needed new valves. The company also acknowledged it did not conduct a complete plant inspection before acquisition and did not fully plan the project before beginning work.

**How does Palisades compare to the Crane Clean Energy Centre restart?**
Constellation Energy's Crane project (835 MWe, Three Mile Island site) is considered more straightforward because the reactor was undamaged and Constellation has years of operational familiarity with the facility. It is targeting restart as soon as next year, a faster timeline than Palisades.

**What federal support exists for nuclear recommissioning?**
The Trump administration's May 2025 executive order "Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base" committed to federal funding — described in the source as billions of dollars — to support recommissioning projects. Critics have raised concerns about taxpayer exposure, particularly for projects involving first-time nuclear operators.

**What does the Palisades experience mean for future nuclear restarts?**
It establishes that recommissioning costs and timelines are highly sensitive to plant condition and operator experience. Projects where the reactor is undamaged and the operator has existing familiarity with the facility are materially more manageable than projects involving aged, corroded systems and a new-to-nuclear operator. Federal approvals should reflect that distinction.