Nuclear is among the oldest sources of energy currently existing. While the discovery of radioactive Uranium dates to 1789, when German chemist Martin Heinrich Klaproth first identified the element, the science of atomic radiation and nuclear fission was mostly developed from 1895 to 1945. Starting in 1945, most research and development shifted attention from just the atomic bomb to harnessing and controlling atomic energy. This period marked the birth of the civilian nuclear power industry, with the first electricity generated from a nuclear reactor in 1951 in Idaho, USA.
Nuclear energy generation in its current form has been around since before the 1960s, with currently more than 400 reactors across 32 countries, accounting for a total capacity of around 400 GW. Providing around 10% of global power supply and a quarter of low-carbon electricity, nuclear energy is the world’s second-largest source of clean power (and the first in OECD countries). Nevertheless, the growth of nuclear power has been stagnant since the mid-2000s. This problem is twofold: first, several nuclear power plants are retiring or being permanently shut down; second, the deployment of new power plants is not rapid enough to offset the loss.
Constructing new nuclear power plants entails huge amounts of capital and investment costs. Those are driven by the high costs of equipment, in addition to the strict regulations, high labor and professional costs, and high financing costs. Moreover, public awareness and regulations in many countries are controlled by false misconceptions about the importance and safety of nuclear energy, preventing their necessary deployment.
Nuclear power can have great potential in accelerating the transition to net zero. It is among the energy-generating technologies with the lowest carbon emissions and, thanks to its 24/7 dispatchability, can provide on-demand electricity to the grid. This consistent power generation capability is particularly crucial as renewable sources like solar and wind are irregular. This can provide huge potential, especially when combined with solar and wind, to meet the increasing demands of energy stability and low carbon emissions, while reducing financial costs. The long-term use of nuclear power plants and their lifetime extensions can offer very cost-effective options for clean energy provision. According to Jay Wileman, the president and CEO of GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, the future of nuclear depends on “building on today’s nuclear.”
Despite its potential, nuclear deployment is not progressing as needed. Policies must address distorted public perceptions, implement more supportive regulations, and create market mechanisms and financing to boost investments. Additionally, policies should allow and incentivize lifetime extensions for nuclear plants to provide more cost-competitive options. The key is to reduce the cost per kilowatt for nuclear via reduced regulatory burdens and NIMBY. The US has one of the highest costs for creating nuclear power in the world and it seriously inhibits new, smaller nuclear projects (SMRs) like NuScale Power’s Idaho National Laboratory reactor.
The objective of this research is to study nuclear energy as a major low-carbon energy source, investigating its opportunities and challenges. This research will serve as a fourth in a series of articles that will study the various top “green” energy sources and their emerging markets.
Executive Summary:
Significant Role in Clean Energy: Nuclear energy provides around 10% of global electricity and 25% of low-carbon electricity, making it the second-largest source of clean power worldwide.
Technological Advancements: Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) offer a promising future for nuclear energy with reduced costs, enhanced safety, and flexible deployment, despite facing economic and regulatory challenges.
Safety and Waste Management: Public concerns about nuclear safety and waste disposal persist, but modern reactors have advanced safety features, and effective waste management solutions are in place.
Economic Considerations: High capital costs and lengthy construction times make new nuclear plants expensive, but once operational, they offer low and stable costs. Lifetime extensions of existing reactors provide a cost-effective alternative.
Future Growth Potential: With supportive policies and international cooperation, nuclear energy capacity could more than double by 2050, playing a crucial role in achieving net-zero emissions.
The Science and Production Technology of Nuclear Energy
Nuclear energy is that released from the nucleus, or the positively charged core of an atom, which is the basic building block (particle) of all matter. The nucleus, made of dense protons and neutrons, is held together by a huge amount of energy, known as the “strong force.” Nuclear energy can be released from an atom through two processes: Fission (splitting nuclei into several parts) or Fusion (joining nuclei together). Currently, nuclear reactors use fission to produce energy, while fusion remains in its research phase, as existing power plants are still incapable of safely and reliably producing nuclear energy from fusion. Fusion research, however, has seen significant advancements, with projects like ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) aiming to demonstrate the feasibility of fusion as a large-scale and carbon-free source of energy in the coming decades.
The process of nuclear fission involves. releasing a large amount of energy through splitting an atom into two or more smaller nuclei. For example, when the nucleus of a Uranium-235 atom is hit by a neutron, it splits into two smaller nuclei (e.g., Barium and Krypton nuclei) and several neutrons, which would then hit other surrounding Uranium-235 atoms, leading to a multiplying effect of more split neutrons and generating a chain reaction in a split of a second. Each of these reactions releases radiation and heat energy, which can then be converted into electricity in a nuclear power plant. This controlled chain reaction is crucial for maintaining a steady power output without leading to uncontrolled explosions as in atomic bombs. Figure 1 below illustrates the process of nuclear fission.
Figure 1 – The Process of Nuclear Fission
Source: International Atomic Energy Agency, What is Nuclear Energy?
Nuclear Technological Advances: The Potential of Small Modular Reactors
Two types of nuclear reactors exist to date (Figure 2): the conventional large reactor, with power capacities of at least 700 MW(e), and the Small Modular Reactor (SMR), which provides capacity of up to 300 MW(e) per unit (Microreactors are a subset of SMRs of up to 10 MW(e) in capacity).
Figure 2 – The Types of Nuclear Reactors
Source: International Atomic Energy Agency, what are Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)?
SMRs represent a significant shift in nuclear technology, aiming to address some of the key economic and logistical challenges associated with conventional large reactors. They are advanced reactors with numerous advantages. First, their smaller design in comparison to the conventional large reactor allows them to be located on a wider range of sites. Moreover, their modular nature allows them to be shipped and installed on-site and incrementally deployed as needed to meet increasing demand, which can tremendously reduce construction costs and time. In addition, SMR designs are typically simpler and safer to handle. Their inherent safety features and passive safety systems further reduce the risk of accidents. Furthermore, SMRs can be integrated into a variety of energy systems, including hybrid systems combining nuclear and renewable energy sources, thus enhancing grid stability and reliability.
Today, more than 80 commercial SMR designs are being developed worldwide for various applications, including electricity, hybrid energy systems (e.g., with other renewables), water desalination and heating. Although they can provide great potential to accelerate nuclear deployment, SMRs still face a number of challenges. First, there are difficulties connecting small reactors to the grid, especially in rural areas. Second, although they are less expensive to build, they are not necessarily economically competitive when operated on a small scale unless the permitting process and regulatory costs are dramatically reduced. Addressing these economic challenges requires innovative financing solutions and supportive regulatory frameworks. Addressing these challenges requires targeted policy support, advanced grid infrastructure, and innovative business models that can harness the unique advantages of SMRs.
The Growth of Nuclear Energy Capacity and Generation
Today, there are around 440 nuclear power reactors worldwide operating across 32 countries, with a total combined nuclear energy capacity of around 400 GW. Almost two thirds (270 GW) of this capacity are in advanced economies, mostly in the U.S., France, and Japan, with a markable proportion also in China and Russia. The top 11 countries by the number of operable nuclear power reactors (Figure 3), together account for 85% of global reactors, with the U.S. alone accounting for 21%, France and China each accounting for 12%, while Russia and Japan each accounting for close to 8% of the total number of power plants. These countries have established robust nuclear industries supported by strong regulatory frameworks, significant investment in research and development, and public acceptance of nuclear energy as a vital part of their energy mix.
Figure 3 – Number of Operable Nuclear Power Reactors by Country, as of May 2024
Source: Statista, Based on World Nuclear Association.
Nuclear energy generation has been around since the 1960s, making it one of the oldest low-carbon power technologies besides hydropower. While nuclear energy generation remarkably expanded between the 1960s and 1990s, it has decelerated since then. In fact, nuclear energy generation increased 100-fold from around 25 TWh in 1965 to 2500 TWh in 2000, however, output has been fairly stable since the mid-2000s. In 2023, global nuclear power generation stood at 2,686 TWh, lower than the 2762 TWh peak in 2021. Following the 2011 Fukushima tsunami in Japan, nuclear power generation experienced a sharp dip, and it wasn’t until 2019 that it recovered to the pre-disaster level (Figure 4).
Figure 4 – The Evolution of Nuclear Energy Generation, 1965-2023
Source: Our World in Data, Based on Ember and Energy Institute.
Global nuclear energy generation accounts for around 10% of total energy generation (Figure 5). While it stands behind coal and natural gas (together capturing 60% of the energy mix), it stands as the second largest clean energy source behind hydropower (which accounts for 15%).
Figure 5 – Global Energy Supply by Technology, %
Source: International Energy Association.
Challenges Facing the Deployment and Use of Nuclear Energy
Safety Concerns and Regulations
The major concern around nuclear power generation is safety. Commercial nuclear power is generally perceived as a dangerous and unstable process, thanks to several historical global accidents (e.g., those that happened in Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island) and the inaccurate association of nuclear power with weapons of mass destruction. Public awareness around the actual safety of nuclear energy generation is much distorted by those false perceptions. As a result, strict regulations and standards are usually set to ensure the safety of nuclear power, which although necessary to comply with best practices, might more often than not restrict the needed deployment, especially when based on false and uninformed misperceptions in some countries.
Public awareness needs to improve on the state, capabilities, and safety of nuclear energy. Nuclear power plants are much safer than perceived. The last major nuclear accident was over a decade ago during the 2011 Fukushima disaster (following a major earthquake and a 15-meter tsunami). It is important to note that despite the severity of the Fukushima incident, the event highlighted the robustness of modern safety measures as no fatalities directly attributable to radiation exposure were reported. Over the past five decades, technological advances have significantly improved the safety of nuclear power generation, with a lot of plants successfully being constructed and safely operated. For example, modern reactors are designed with multiple redundant safety systems and passive safety features that automatically shut down the reactor in case of anomalies. Additionally, third-generation nuclear reactors, such as the EPR (European Pressurized Reactor), incorporate enhanced safety mechanisms including double-walled containment structures and core-catcher systems to manage potential meltdowns. Today, rapid digital transformation, big data, and artificial intelligence can help simulate the behavior of nuclear reactors under different conditions, predicting performance and safety risks before they happen. Moreover, predictive maintenance enabled by AI can pre-emptively address equipment issues, further minimizing the risk of accidents.
The Transportation, storage, and Disposal of Used Fuel
The transportation, storage, and disposal of radioactive waste are substantial challenges that face the industry and drive their strict regulations. Radioactive waste is categorized into different levels, each requiring specific handling and disposal methods to ensure safety. Adequate transportation infrastructure is necessary to be able to safely handle waste. This includes specially designed containers that shield and contain radiation during transit. Careful and correct storage and handling of used fuel is critical to avoid any chance of leakage or radioactive exposure by citizens. For instance, spent fuel is initially stored in cooling pools for several years to allow heat and radioactivity to decrease before being moved to dry cask storage systems, which are robust and designed for long-term containment. However, with the right knowledge and careful arrangements, governments can easily manage this task. For almost 90% of nuclear waste, a successful disposal method has been developed and is adopted somewhere in the world. Most low-level radioactive waste (LLW), which is the majority of nuclear waste, can be sent to land-based disposal directly following its packaging. Intermediate-level waste (ILW) often requires encapsulation in concrete or bitumen before disposal in specially engineered facilities. For high-level radioactive waste (HLW), storage underwater is typically needed for at least five years, allowing radioactive decay, before which it can be safely handled. After the initial cooling period, high-level waste (HLW) can undergo vitrification, a process that immobilizes the waste in glass. The vitrified waste is then stored in geological repositories, which are designed to contain and isolate it for thousands of years. Over time, the radioactivity of nuclear waste tends to decay over time, making it safe to handle if properly stored before disposal (usually for about 50 years).
For example, in the U.S., the Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for the secure storage and disposal of nuclear waste, in more than 70 sites across 35 states. Until a permanent solution can be created for disposal, those facilities can remain in place, with no change in the foreseeable future. Moreover, the DOE regularly evaluates nuclear power plant sites and transportation infrastructure to ensure the safe handling of used nuclear fuel.
Here’s a great way to understand the perception problem of nuclear energy. The world remembers two big nuclear plant disasters. First in the US, 3 Mile Island. Second, Chernobyl. These are valid reasons to be significantly cautious about nuclear energy. There has also been heavy discussion about the amount of used nuclear material and where to store it. Again, valid caution is necessary due to the long life of the used materials. However, some perspective is needed. The picture below depicts all the US nuclear waste as of 2023. It is relatively small and would not be a problem if the US ever decided to move forward with storing the material in a central location like Yucca Mountain.
Figure 6 – US Nuclear Waste Total 1951-2023
Source: What Is Nuclear
The Retirement of Old Nuclear Plants and High Cost of New Construction
Many nuclear plants around the world are set to retire in the foreseeable future (Figure 6), and the high costs of building new plants can make the project economically non-viable. This is especially the case as nuclear has to compete with other renewables, such as solar or wind, for which costs have rapidly declined over the past decades, making them much more competitive. Accordingly, extending the lifetime of nuclear plants rather than building new ones from scratch might be the best solution to support deployment as needed. Lifetime extensions, known as Long-Term Operation (LTO), involve significant investments in safety upgrades, modernization of equipment, and rigorous regulatory reviews, ensuring that aging reactors continue to operate safely and efficiently. LTO programs also provide an opportunity to incorporate the latest technological advancements and regulatory standards, thereby enhancing overall plant performance. The economics of nuclear power and its challenges are discussed in detail in the next section.
Figure 7 – Retiring Nuclear Reactors (Negative Values Reflect a Loss in Capacity, GW)
Source: International Energy Association.
The Economics of Nuclear Energy: Expensive to Build, Cheap to Run
The cost of nuclear energy production consists of several components, including capital costs, operation and management costs, as well as external and other costs. In the case of nuclear, capital costs can be particularly significant, accounting for the bulk of the expenses. Those include the investment before and during plant construction, such as site preparation, engineering, design, construction, licensing, labor, equipment expenses, in addition to financing costs. These substantial capital investments are often spread over the long construction periods, necessitating stable and long-term financial commitments. Additionally, the complexity of nuclear projects often necessitates extensive safety and environmental impact assessments, further adding to the initial costs. Operating and maintenance costs, on the other hand, include the costs of fuel (e.g., Uranium), which are typically cheap compared to other fuels (e.g., natural gas), as well as the costs of plant decommissioning and used-fuel storage and disposal. Other costs might include random items such as nuclear taxes or dealing with accidents if they happen. Despite their huge capital costs, once in operation, nuclear power generation benefits from low and stable variable costs, which could offset the high upfront costs in the long-run, making them economically viable (especially with lifetime extensions). Furthermore, the economic advantages of nuclear power are amplified by its high-capacity factor, which often exceeds 90%, ensuring consistent and reliable energy production.
The Tables below provide a breakdown of capital costs, first by activity and second in terms of equipment, labor, goods and materials:
Figure 8 – Breakdown of Nuclear Capital Costs by Activity and Use
Source: World Nuclear Association.
Unlike other clean energy sources, the capital costs of new nuclear power plants have increased over time, despite the technological improvements – a trend that is often referred to as “negative learning.” For example, while in the 1960s nuclear plants cost no more than $1000/kWe (in 2010 dollars) to construct, estimated current construction costs can reach as high as $8000/kWe (in 2010 dollars), with an actual cost of at least double that value due to the higher financing costs. This increase is partly attributed to the need for more sophisticated safety systems and regulatory compliance measures. The construction period of nuclear power plants is exceptionally long. A typical power plant can take up to 11-12 years to construct and decommission, compared to only two years in the case of a natural gas-fired power plant. Accordingly, cost estimates tend to steadily increase during the construction period, with the final costs reaching at least 2-4 times as high as those initially budgeted. Delays and budget overruns are common in nuclear construction projects, often due to unforeseen technical challenges and evolving regulatory requirements. Examples of recent projects experiencing such issues include the Flamanville 3 reactor in France and the Vogtle plant in the United States, both of which faced significant delays and cost escalations.
Moreover, the increasing costs of enacting new nuclear power plants have been driven by stricter regulations and higher labor costs. The increasing regulations make nuclear plants more burdensome to build, with higher quality control and assurance requirements, as well as higher labor requirements. It is estimated that over 70% of the increase in nuclear plant costs is due to indirect costs, mostly the need for expensive professionals, such as engineers and managers. Moreover, it is estimated that between the 1960s and 1970s, regulations were responsible for a 176% increase in costs, while labor requirements were responsible for a 137% increase. These statistics highlight the substantial impact of regulatory frameworks on the economics of nuclear projects, emphasizing the need for balanced regulations that ensure safety without imposing excessive financial burdens. The indirect costs reflect the extensive engineering, safety analysis, and administrative efforts required to comply with strict nuclear regulations, which ensure the highest standards of operational safety and environmental protection.
Under the current economic conditions, financing costs are also becoming a critical burden in the face of nuclear power plant construction. The capital-intensive nature and lengthy construction durations of nuclear power plants, from start to grid connection, make their capital costs particularly sensitive to the cost of financing. At low enough discount rates, nuclear can even be cheaper than solar and wind energy sources. At a discount rate of 3%, nuclear energy can provide the lowest cost option for all countries, compared to other fossil fuels. Nevertheless, with a 4-percentage point increase to 7%, the cost of nuclear jumps significantly, becoming less competitive than gas. At a 10% discount rate, it becomes less competitive than both gas and coal. A 10-percentage point increase in financing costs (from 0% to 10%), can increase the levelized cost of energy for nuclear by three times, compared to only 1.4 times for coal, almost nothing for gas, 2.25 times for solar PV and 2 times for onshore wind. The sensitivity of nuclear economics to financing costs highlights the importance of securing favorable financial terms and exploring innovative funding mechanisms, such as government-backed loan guarantees and public-private partnerships.
The Economic Advantage of Nuclear Power: Dispatchable Energy and Low-Cost Extension
Nuclear power has an important role to play in decarbonizing the energy supply, without which it is argued that the transition to net zero will be much more expensive and difficult to reach. Nuclear is amongst the energy sources with the least carbon emissions. In fact, it is capable of producing lower emissions than wind and solar across its life cycle (minimum emissions), and its median emissions are only closely surpassed by those of wind (Figure 8). This low-emission profile positions nuclear power as a critical component of a diversified and resilient clean energy portfolio, capable of complementing intermittent renewable sources.
Figure 9 – Emissions of Energy Supply Technologies Across the Entire Life Cycle (gCO2eq/kWh)
Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
In the U.S., for example, nuclear power is the largest source of clean energy, generating close to 775 billion kWh of electricity and avoiding more than 471 million metric tons of carbon per year (equivalent to the removal of 100 million passenger vehicles off the road). These substantial carbon savings highlight the pivotal role of nuclear power in achieving national and international climate goals, providing a reliable and scalable solution for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Unlike wind or solar energy, which suffer from intermittency challenges, nuclear power’s economic advantages extend beyond its generation costs, thanks to its 24/7 dispatchability. It is true that solar and wind can provide the cheapest sources of clean energy, nevertheless, we still need on-demand dispatchable energy, which they both fall short of under the current storage infrastructure. Nuclear, on the other hand, can provide reliable all-day grid stability. When taking this into consideration, nuclear becomes the dispatchable clean energy with the lowest expected costs. While large-scale hydro power generation can compete at that level, it tends to depend on the country’s natural water endowment, making it a less plausible option in many cases (Figure 9). Additionally, the land and water requirements of hydroelectric projects can create major environmental and social challenges, limiting their feasibility in certain regions. In contrast, nuclear power generation can be more cost-effective than coal-fired plants and natural gas-fired plants, especially in areas where natural gas prices are high. For existing nuclear plants, long-term operation (LTO) through lifetime extension tends to be the most cost competitive option compared to all other clean and fossil-fuel energy options. Hybrid energy systems that combine nuclear with wind or solar can also provide significant potential for meeting the need for both flexibility and emission reduction, while at the same time maximizing economic viability. These hybrid systems leverage the complementary strengths of nuclear and renewable energy sources, enhancing grid reliability and optimizing overall energy production.
Figure 10 – The Levelized Cost of Energy by Technology (at 7% discount rate)
Source: Nuclear Energy Agency
Nuclear Growth Potential to 2050
The future trajectory of nuclear energy growth will depend largely on how policies evolve and the extent to which the important role of nuclear power for the green transition up to 2050 is acknowledged. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), nuclear power generation capacity can more than double to reach 890 GW by 2050 under an ambitious High Case scenario, if the expressed intentions of the different countries to expand their nuclear power generation were to be fulfilled. Achieving this scenario will require coordinated international efforts and significant investments in new reactor technologies, including small modular reactors (SMRs), which offer greater flexibility and shorter construction times. Nevertheless, under a business-as-usual Low Case Scenario, where the current market, technology, and resource trends as well as policies and regulations do not change, growth could be limited to reach no more than 458 GW by 2050. Similar estimates from the International Energy Agency (IEA) project capacity to almost double to 812 GW by 2050, under a Net Zero Emissions (NZE) Scenario. These projections highlight the critical impact of policy decisions and international cooperation in shaping the future landscape of nuclear energy. They emphasize the need for proactive measures to realize the high growth potential.
Figure 11 – Nuclear Capacity Growth Up to 2050, GW
Source: The International Atomic Energy Agency
In addition to the existing nuclear power capacity, several countries are making notable efforts to boost their nuclear energy potential. Those include:
- Accelerating deployment through new nuclear additions: For example, China completed two new reactors in 2022, started construction for an additional four, and plans to accelerate deployment further. Finland also completed the new reactor Olkiluoto 3 in 2023, the first new Western European addition in 15 years. In addition, France will construct six new large-scale reactors (the first to be commissioned in 2035), which will meet close to 10% of its electricity demand, with the potential of an additional eight reactors. Moreover, Canada will build an SMR at an existing nuclear facility by 2028, supported through a loan by the Canadian Infrastructure Bank. These projects demonstrate the global momentum towards expanding nuclear capacity and the increasing interest in innovative reactor designs.
- Extending the operational lifetime of existing reactors: For example, Belgium took the decision to extend the operation of two existing reactors for an additional 10 years, from 2025 to 2035, which will meet 15% of its electricity demand. Such extensions are cost-effective strategies that optimize the use of existing infrastructure while ensuring ongoing safety and performance.
- New policies and regulations to boost deployment: For example, under its green transformation initiative, Japan established a new policy in 2022 to maximize the use of the existing reactors and develop new ones, transformation initiative, and passed a law in 2023 to allow power companies to operate nuclear assets for longer (over 60 years in some cases). In addition, Canada introduced in 2022 a new tax credit of up to 30% for investment in clean energy technologies, including nuclear SMR. Under its 10th Basic Energy Plan, Korea plans to expand its nuclear power from 28% to 30% of electricity generation by 2030. In the U.K., the 2022 Energy Security Strategy aims to build 8 new large reactors and SMRs to reach a 24 GW nuclear power capacity by 2050, providing up to 25% of electricity demand. In the U.S., the Inflation Reduction Act incentivizes zero-emission nuclear energy generation through tax credits and provides additional support for new plant construction. These policies illustrate a growing recognition of the strategic importance of nuclear energy in achieving energy security and climate objectives.
Nevertheless, significant efforts are needed for nuclear energy to get on track with the NZE Scenario by 2050. This should include additional lifetime extensions to existing reactors, which would provide one of the most cost-effective options for low-emission power generation, as well as the acceleration of new deployment. In 2022, around 8 GW of new nuclear capacity was added globally, yet the NZE scenario calls for an annual deployment of more than four times this amount by 2030. Achieving these ambitious deployment targets will require overcoming technical, financial, and regulatory challenges, as well as fostering public support for nuclear energy.
Final Thoughts
Nuclear is among the energy sources with the lowest carbon emission. Accordingly, it holds great potential to accelerate the transition to Net Zero through decarbonizing the energy mix. However, the growth in nuclear power has been stagnant in recent years, driven by the increasingly retiring plants and the high cost of constructing new power plants. Although the cost of new nuclear plant construction is higher than other cheaper renewables, such as solar and wind, lifetime extensions of existing reactors can provide some of the most cost-competitive options. This, coupled with its dispatchable nature, can help fulfill the increasing need for low-carbon stable electricity.
Despite these advantages, greater efforts and faster deployments are needed via reduced regulatory costs and permitting reform. Expanding nuclear energy will also require addressing public concerns about safety and waste management through transparent communication and robust safety measures. Engaging with communities and stakeholders to build trust and correct misconceptions about nuclear energy is essential for its broader acceptance and deployment.
National policies are central to supporting the deployment of nuclear power and accelerating their role in the green energy transition. Raising high-level discussions to coordinate global efforts are critical, to ensure the adoption of national policies and international cooperation that are necessary for the safe, secure, well-regulated, and economically viable deployment of nuclear energy worldwide.
Several recommendations can be provided on that front. First, building public awareness about the actual benefits and risks of nuclear power is essential. Second, investing in the necessary infrastructure to handle the safe transportation, storage, and disposal of waste is key. Third, incentivizing investments in research and development to further improve safety, efficiency, and cost effectiveness is important. Fourth, building the correct market mechanisms to finance and incentivize the construction and lifetime extensions of nuclear power to compete with other renewables is also essential. Fifth, while a well-regulated nuclear industry is essential to ensure safety, overly strict regulations might hinder the necessary development. For example, while in the U.S., almost all commercial reactors are owned by the private sector, the government remains highly involved with strict and time-consuming requirements for construction and operations, which largely increase the cost of investment. The review and licensing process, for instance, can reach up to 5 years prior to construction, jeopardizing the viability of the budgeted project. Streamlining regulatory processes and providing clear, consistent guidelines can help reduce delays and uncertainties, making nuclear projects more attractive to investors.
