Economics
Environment
Policy
Technology
Clean Energy, Climate Action, Climate Leadership, Decarbonization, energy policy, Energy Security, Energy Transition, Ethanol Blending, Global Energy, Green Hydrogen, India at G7, Infrastructure, Net Zero, Nuclear Energy, PM Modi, Renewable Energy, Small Modular Reactors, SMRs, Sustainable Future, Technology
AnilMehta
Nuclear Energy — A Pragmatic Pivot in a Carbon-Constrained World
Over the past decade, energy policy has been dominated by a polarized debate: on one side, the climate imperative to decarbonize energy systems as quickly as possible; on the other, the practical challenges of meeting baseload electricity demand in a world that still largely runs on fossil fuels. Now, quietly but significantly, a familiar yet controversial solution is re-entering the global discourse—nuclear energy.
What was once considered an aging, hazardous, and politically toxic technology is now being reassessed by countries across the development spectrum. From the United States and France to China, India, and even newcomer nations like Bangladesh and Egypt, nuclear energy is receiving renewed attention. The reasons are structural, not ideological—and the timing could not be more consequential.
India is no laggard in this global nuclear revival—in fact, it is steadily advancing its position. Over the past decade, the country has expanded its fleet with indigenous PHWRs, partnered with Russia on major projects like Kudankulam, and approved fleet-mode construction of 10 new reactors to accelerate rollout. Most notably, India has opened the sector to private investment and is initiating work on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Energy security was also a key theme during Prime Minister Modi’s address at the recent G7 summit, where he reaffirmed India’s commitment to reliable, clean, and sovereign energy sources.
Why Now?
Electricity is the bedrock of any modern economy. But producing electricity that is simultaneously clean, reliable, and affordable has proven to be one of the most complex policy challenges of the 21st century. Solar and wind have made impressive strides in terms of capacity expansion and cost reduction. Yet their intermittency—the fact that they only generate when the sun shines or the wind blows—presents grid stability issues that are not easily resolved, especially without cost-effective, long-duration energy storage solutions.
Fossil fuels, while dispatchable, are incompatible with the decarbonization goals set out in the Paris Agreement. Even natural gas, considered a bridge fuel, is coming under increased scrutiny. In this context, nuclear energy offers an increasingly rare combination of high reliability, zero carbon emissions, and technological maturity.
Countries are responding accordingly. China recently approved the construction of 10 new reactors. The U.S. has completed its first new reactors in over three decades. France, already one of the most nuclear-heavy countries in the world, is expanding its fleet. Even Germany—long a vocal opponent of nuclear—is softening its opposition. These developments are not anomalies. They are indicators of a structural pivot.
Historical Baggage, Contemporary Relevance
The history of nuclear energy is entangled with public fear and high-profile accidents: Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986), and Fukushima (2011). Each of these incidents, though very different in scale and consequence, deeply eroded public trust and stalled investment in nuclear infrastructure for decades. This trust deficit—not technology or economics—was arguably the single greatest barrier to nuclear development.
But the risk calculus is changing. Climate change has emerged as a more immediate and certain threat than nuclear accidents, and this reframes the risk-benefit analysis. It is no longer a question of “why nuclear?” but rather “how else do we reliably decarbonize at scale?”
The empirical evidence is telling. France, which never turned its back on nuclear, derives about 70% of its electricity from nuclear plants with one of the lowest per capita carbon emissions in the OECD. The U.S., despite its stagnation in new builds, still generates roughly 20% of its electricity from nuclear. In both cases, the operational safety records over the past decades have been strong, underscoring how technological evolution and regulatory rigor have reduced systemic risks.
Economics of the Atom
Critics rightly point out that nuclear power is capital-intensive and slow to build. But the economics vary sharply across geographies. China’s latest 10-reactor approval comes with a price tag of $27 billion—or $2.3 million per MW—thanks to standardized designs, streamlined approvals, lower labor costs, and state-backed financing.
Contrast that with the UK’s Hinkley Point C, which will cost an estimated $43 billion for 3.2 GW capacity—over $13 million per MW. The U.S. completed Vogtle Units 3 and 4 at an even higher cost of $16 million per MW. These disparities are not just about raw inputs—they reflect deep differences in regulatory processes, political will, labor markets, financing structures, and industrial ecosystems.
What China has done right is maintain momentum. By continuously building reactors, it retains skilled labor, experienced supply chains, and public sector expertise. Western countries, by contrast, have suffered from atrophy: when construction stops for decades, so does institutional competence.
The SMR Inflection Point
Perhaps the most promising development lies in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These sub-300 MW units are designed to be manufactured in factories, shipped, and deployed with plug-and-play efficiency. Their compact size, standardized design, and passive safety systems could radically reduce construction timelines and capital costs.
Major tech firms—including Microsoft and Google—are eyeing SMRs to power data centers, which are electricity-intensive and require continuous, clean energy. Governments too are taking note. The U.S. included nuclear in its Inflation Reduction Act, offering tax incentives for SMRs. The EU has reclassified nuclear as a green investment. India, still in the design phase, has opened the sector to private investment.
However, enthusiasm must be tempered with realism. Most SMRs are not yet commercial. Projects in the U.S. have faced delays and investor pullouts. China’s Linglong One is under development. Russia has launched a floating SMR. India’s plans remain aspirational. While the technology is promising, it has not yet reached the scale or speed required to make a short-term dent in emissions.
Challenges That Remain
Despite the upside, nuclear energy is no panacea. Long-term waste disposal remains a politically and technically unresolved issue. Public acceptance—though softening—can still derail projects. Financing large plants requires stable, long-term policy support and access to low-cost capital, both of which are often absent outside of centrally planned economies.
Moreover, nuclear should not be viewed as a replacement for renewables, but as a complement. The ideal grid of the future will be diversified: leveraging solar, wind, hydro, battery storage, demand response, and yes, nuclear—to create a resilient and decarbonized energy mix.
A Rational Pivot
The resurgence of nuclear power is not driven by nostalgia or ideology. It is driven by the growing recognition that there is no credible path to net-zero without firm, clean baseload power. Nuclear energy—despite its costs, despite its controversies—remains one of the very few tools that can deliver on all three counts: reliability, scale, and decarbonization.
The task now is not to argue over whether nuclear is perfect—it isn’t—but to ask whether we can afford to decarbonize without it. Given the mounting evidence, the answer appears to be no. As we stand at the crossroads of climate necessity and energy pragmatism, nuclear energy offers a pathway—imperfect, but essential—toward a more stable and sustainable energy future.
References:
https://qz.com/amazon-google-microsoft-nuclear-power-ai-data-centers-1851673653