Nuclear Power's Uncertain Future: Experts Weigh In on Small Modular Reactors
As the world grapples with the challenges of climate change and the need for clean energy, nuclear power has emerged as a potential solution. However, the industry’s track record of cost overruns and delays has led to skepticism about its ability to deliver on its promises. Recently, small modular reactors (SMRs) have been touted as a game-changer, offering a more efficient and cost-effective alternative to traditional nuclear power plants.
According to Paul Stein, CEO of Floral Energy Limited and former chief technology officer of Rolls-Royce, SMRs are constructed in a modular fashion, which reduces capital costs and construction time. "The most important difference is it's constructed in a modular fashion, which reduces the capital cost," Stein said. "This means all the parts of the reactor can be built in a factory environment, can be brought to site, bolted together on site, and that dramatically reduces the time to getting power on the grid and the capital cost of the equipment."
However, despite the hype surrounding SMRs, there are still significant questions about their cost-effectiveness. Michael Crab, senior vice president of the commercial team at Last Energy, noted that his company’s micromodular nuclear power plant, which is designed to be mass-produced, has a key advantage in terms of cost. "Our product is manufacturable, so it's ultimately a 20 megawatt power plant," Crab said. "Versus SMRs, small modular reactors, tend to be 300 megawatts or so. Traditional nuclear plants are a thousand megawatt and much, much larger, both in space and capability. Each of our units is approximately $100 million."
Despite these developments, some experts remain skeptical about the nuclear industry's ability to deliver on its promises. Energy economist Dr. Sarah Jenkins highlighted the financial risk: "The nuclear industry has a bad name because it has wasted so many taxpayer dollars over time, and no one has ever apologized for it. If you go 10 billion over budget and 10 years over schedule, and you do it on the ratepayer or the taxpayers' dime, you can't turn around and celebrate that like a huge success. It's incredibly offensive to people who are working hard to make ends meet."
As the world continues to grapple with climate change, the debate over the role of nuclear power in the energy mix is likely to continue. While SMRs offer a promising alternative, the industry’s track record and the high costs associated with nuclear power plants remain significant hurdles to overcome.
As the conversation around nuclear energy evolves, industry leaders and environmentalists are weighing in on its viability. Clean energy advocate Dr. Emily Hart emphasized the need for accountability: "The nuclear industry must take responsibility for delivering on its promises rather than blaming external factors for its shortcomings."
Meanwhile, tech giants are increasingly looking to nuclear power to meet their substantial electricity needs. Companies like Microsoft, Amazon, and Google are investing in nuclear energy — with Microsoft reportedly exploring the reopening of the Three Mile Island reactor and Amazon planning to build a data center near a nuclear site in Pennsylvania. This shift is largely driven by the energy-hungry nature of artificial intelligence systems, with one AI query consuming 10 times as much electricity as a standard Google search.
However, not everyone agrees that nuclear is the answer. Dale Vince, founder of Ecotricity, a UK-based green energy supplier, argued that nuclear power is too slow, too expensive, and too dangerous. He pointed out that building a wind turbine can take just 12 months, and its carbon footprint is offset within 18 months, compared to the 30 years it typically takes for a nuclear plant to break even on carbon emissions.
On the other hand, nuclear policy analyst Mark Reynolds countered Vince’s critique, noting: "While wind and solar power are abundant and renewable, they are not always available. Energy storage costs are still prohibitively high. Nuclear power will eventually have to be part of the energy mix, but for now, investing in wind, solar, and carbon capture is reasonable, as long as we have a transition plan."
Reynolds also addressed the UK’s limited energy storage capacity, pointing out that "the country currently has just over 30 gigawatt hours of storage, enough to power the entire nation for only one hour." This underlines the urgent need for more robust energy storage solutions, such as advanced batteries, to support renewable energy expansion.
The discussion also touched on public perception, particularly fears around nuclear safety. Reynolds explained, "The idea that a nuclear reactor can explode like an atomic bomb is still prevalent, despite the fact that the uranium used in reactors is not enriched to the same level as bomb-grade uranium. A nuclear power plant is more like a stick of incense — it releases energy slowly and safely — whereas a bomb is like a stick of dynamite, releasing energy all at once."
Despite ongoing concerns, nuclear power continues to attract interest for its potential to reduce carbon emissions. Reynolds observed, "If a new energy source were discovered today that produced zero-carbon electricity without air pollution, it would be hailed as revolutionary. Nuclear power already offers that, and with the right licensing and regulation, it can be deployed safely and effectively."
Finally, the issue of nuclear waste disposal was raised, with Reynolds explaining that "most of the waste from the UK’s nuclear program is stored at Sellafield in Cumbria, with some at Dounreay in Scotland. Once the fuel is removed from a reactor site, the challenges of decommissioning and waste management become significantly more manageable."
As the energy landscape continues to evolve, nuclear power is poised to remain a significant part of the global shift toward a low-carbon future. While the industry still faces hurdles — including cost, waste, and public perception — its ability to provide reliable baseload power and drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions ensures that it will remain central to future energy discussions.
The debate over nuclear power is far from settled, reflecting fundamentally different philosophies about how best to balance energy security, environmental responsibility, and economic realities. As global leaders and communities strive for solutions, open and informed conversations will be key to shaping a sustainable and resilient energy future.
