A decade ago, it seemed that the global nuclear industry was on the decline. Worries about safety, cost, and the management of radioactive waste had dampened enthusiasm for a technology that was once hailed as a revolutionary source of cheap, abundant energy.
However, today there is growing talk of a nuclear revival, fueled by major tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon announcing investments in the sector, as well as the increasing pressure on developed nations to reduce their carbon emissions. But how genuine is this resurgence?
When nuclear power was first developed in the 1950s and 1960s, governments were captivated by its seemingly boundless potential. Nuclear reactors harnessed the same powerful forces as atomic bombs, offering the promise of vast electricity supplies for millions of homes. With a single kilogram of uranium producing about 20,000 times more energy than a kilogram of coal, it appeared to be the future.
But public fear over safety grew, and events like the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, which spread radioactive contamination across Europe, intensified opposition and slowed industry growth. Another disaster, the Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan in 2011, revived concerns about nuclear safety, leading Japan to shut down all its reactors, with only 12 restarting since. Germany decided to phase out nuclear power entirely, while other nations scaled back plans to build new plants or extend the lives of existing ones. Between 2011 and 2020, the International Atomic Energy Agency reports, global nuclear capacity fell by 48GW.
Despite this, nuclear development continued, particularly in China, where the number of nuclear reactors grew from 13 in 2011 to 55, with 23 more under construction. For China, which faces rapidly increasing electricity demand, nuclear power remains a crucial component of its energy strategy.
Interest in nuclear energy is picking up again in other regions as well, largely driven by the need to meet energy demands and reduce carbon emissions under the Paris Agreement. With 2024 expected to be the warmest year on record, the pressure to cut carbon emissions is intensifying, and energy security concerns, particularly following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, are also playing a role.
For instance, South Korea recently reversed its plans to phase out nuclear power and is now planning to build more reactors. Similarly, France, which relies on nuclear power for 70% of its electricity, has abandoned plans to reduce its reliance on nuclear energy and instead aims to construct up to eight new reactors. The US government has also reaffirmed its commitment to tripling nuclear power generation by 2050, a pledge it first made at COP28 in 2023. At the COP29 conference in 2024, the US and UK announced plans to accelerate nuclear power technology development.
In addition to government support, major tech companies are fueling the demand for clean energy. As AI technologies grow, so does the need for vast amounts of energy to power data centers. According to Barclays Research, these centers account for 3.5% of electricity consumption in the US, and this figure is expected to rise to more than 9% by the end of the decade.
In September, Microsoft signed a 20-year agreement with Constellation Energy to purchase power from the infamous Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania, which suffered a partial meltdown in 1979. Despite its troubled history, the plant’s second reactor continued generating electricity until 2019. Constellation’s CEO, Joe Dominguez, described the deal to restart the plant as a “powerful symbol” of nuclear energy’s potential as a clean, reliable source of power.
Other tech giants are taking a different route. Google has committed to purchasing power from Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), a new nuclear technology designed to be smaller, cheaper, and easier to deploy than traditional reactors. Amazon is also supporting SMR development.
SMRs are seen as a solution to one of nuclear power’s biggest challenges: the high costs and complexity of building new large-scale reactors. For example, Hinkley Point C in the UK, Britain’s first new nuclear plant in decades, has faced significant delays and cost overruns, with an additional £9 billion added to the project’s budget. Similarly, the US’s newest reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia were seven years late and cost over $35 billion, more than double the original estimate.
In contrast, SMRs aim to reduce costs by using standardized parts that can be assembled quickly and located closer to demand centers. While there are currently around 80 SMR designs in development worldwide, their commercial viability has not yet been proven.
Supporters of nuclear energy argue that it is essential for meeting climate targets. Rod Adams, from Nucleation Capital, points to the long safety track record of nuclear fission, which he describes as a “durable, reliable source of power with low ongoing costs.” However, critics like Professor M.V. Ramana of the University of British Columbia argue that nuclear power is one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity and that investing in cheaper, low-carbon energy sources would yield greater emissions reductions.
One major unresolved issue, however, is the disposal of nuclear waste. Despite decades of nuclear power generation, no long-term solution has been found for the safe storage of radioactive materials, which remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. Many governments are pursuing geological disposal, burying waste deep underground in sealed tunnels, but only Finland has completed such a facility. Environmental groups argue that simply hiding the waste underground is too risky.
How this issue is resolved could play a critical role in determining whether nuclear power will indeed experience a true revival in the coming decades.
