Looking at the nuclear power stations that were seriously proposed and planned out but never actually built for a variety of reasons, one can see that there is some room for growth in what nuclear plants could be built, and that some were just not wise:
- Allens Creek (Wallis, Texas) - a possibility to be built, as there are no real technical issues here, but citizen protests got this one.
- Bailly (Porter County, Indiana) - another could have been, though this one is not particularly well sited, but then again that didn't stop San Onofre or Indian Point. Call this one as a maybe.
- Alan R. Barton (Clanton, Alabama) - again, no technical problems or poor spacing, but in the still largely-rural central Alabama demand for electricity would probably be an issue unless Birmingham to the north grows or changes its industry, which is a possibility.
- Black Fox (Inola, Oklahoma) - putting a nuclear power station on the edges of a town where people live generally isn't a good idea, particularly if the town doesn't approve from the start.
- Blue Hills (Jasper, Texas) - another possibility, but here again the question of demand (particularly if Allens Creek gets built) arises unless you're running power to Houston. Mind you, if you are doing that, this plant makes all the sense in the world for an economic perspective. Here, however, you may have environmental question marks.
- Bodega Bay (Bodega Bay, California) - site was literally directly on top of the San Andreas Fault. Enough said.
- Erie (Sandusky, Ohio) - no technical problems, but demand only works if you are going to toss out coal-fired generation because of the presence of three existing power stations (Davis-Besse, Fermi and Perry) on Lake Erie.
- Greene County (Catskill, New York) - if you can build this one instead of Indian Point you're probably coming out ahead, but otherwise the local demand isn't really particularly sufficient unless you again are growing electric power demand or keeping local industries active.
- Hanford (Hanford, Washington) - the climate could hardly be much better for the building of a nuclear power plant and the facility is in the middle of a major nuclear reprocessing center, but the main problem here is demand.
- Hartsville (Hartsville, Tennessee) - no technical problems but demand falling out ended the building of this plant. Work around that, and this power plant can easily be built.
- Haven (Haven, Wisconsin) - easily built and no technical, environmental or real local population problems, but there are several other nuclear plants supplying Milwaukee and Chicago to the south, so demand may be an issue here.
- Marble Hill (Hanover, Indiana) - of all the cancelled plants to not be finished, this one is probably the dumbest of them all, as they were installing the reactors when this one was called off. Finishing it would have been much more wise.
- Montague (Montague, Massachusetts) - another case of citizen protests killing a proposal under construction, but again the question of demand level in New England exists.
- Satsop (Elma, Washington) - not particularly the best place to build a nuclear power plant, but there is no real technical issues here aside from the region being seismically active, which can be built to deal with.
- Sears Isle (Sears Isle, Maine) - no technical problems here either aside from the local weather sometimes being somewhat vile, but this one has been a focal point for environmentalist concerns since the 1960s. Probably best, considering local electrical demand, to pass on this one.
- Sundesert (Blythe, California) - primary problem here is the fact that this part of the world is very seismically active. Get around that problem and this plant is viable, though water supplies in the region are rather short.
- Victoria County (Victoria, Texas) - no problems with viability here, as the plant location is pretty much equidistant from Houston, San Antonio, Austin and Corpus Christi, but yet again the primary problem is economics here - the plan got killed because of cheap natural gas. Make the economics work and this one would be a no-brainer.
- Yellow Creek (Iuka, Mississippi) - another TVA project canned because of falling electricity demand, you can make this one work if the generating ability is there, but having both this and the Alan R. Barton plant mentioned above would create a glut of power unless you sought to run power east over the Appalachians.
This list doesn't count Bellefonte (which may be finished yet) and Watts Bar Unit 2 (finishing up activation now) because those two may not be entirely dead yet.
This list also doesn't look at the closed plants - Crystal River (Crystal River, Florida) is only out of commission because the work on a major retrofit of the plant ended up being a monumental fuckup, San Onofre (San Clemente, California) closed because of defective components causing economic issues, Fort St. Vrain (Platteville, Colorado) ended up being closed because of economic issues after the plant got its technical issues figured out, Rancho Seco (Herald, California) and Trojan (Rainier, Oregon) because of citizen opposition, demand issues and operating problems, Shoreham (East Shoreham, New York) was probably the worst-located nuclear plant of all in North America and Zion (Lake County, Illinois) because of operator screwups and economic issues.
Now, knowing the glut of power having the additional plants would create and Trojan's crappy construction quality, closing it may be inevitable, and Shoreham should have never been built in the first place, but the rest could - probably should - still be operating today, namely owing to the concerns about power demand in the areas around the plants.