November 6, 2025

Putting Nuclear back on the map

On Nov. 5th, as part of SOSV's Climate Tech Summit, Rod Adams of Nucleation Capital and Matt Loszak, CEO of Aalo Atomics joined Tim De Chant of TechCrunch in a panel called "Nuclear Fission Refueled: Putting Nuclear Back on the Map." Aalo Atomics, one of Nucleation's portfolio companies, had an opportunity to shine, as the only fission venture featured. Matt spoke about where Aalo is in its development cycle, why it has been pursuing DOE authorization for the past two years, why it was a serendipitous choice, given recent actions by the DOE and how that intersects with Aalo's NRC licensing process, among many other aspects of how Aalo is progressing with its development of a Gen IV nuclear reactor that is "purpose built" for data centers.

To listen to this panel, please click: "Nuclear Fission Refueled: Putting Nuclear Back on the Map."

June 11, 2025

World Bank lifts ban on funding nuclear energy ()

Ajay Banga, the World Bank president, announced that it would lift its decades-long ban on financing nuclear energy and “begin to re-enter the nuclear energy space” in partnership with the International Atomic Energy Agency. This policy shift is aimed at accelerating development of the low-emissions nuclear technology to meet surging electricity demand in the developing world.

May 30, 2025

CATF: Beyond LCOE: Evaluating Electricity Decarbonization Pathways

CATF's Beyond LCOE Report

takes a systems-oriented perspective to evaluate electricity decarbonization pathways and finds that LCOE is not an effective approach to planning decarbonization policies.

 

May 25, 2025

Climate anomalies, ecologic disasters and climate uncertainties: All point to climate being worse than projected

Forest fires

Climate tipping effects may be kicking in

Forest loss graphFor those tracking the state of the climate, the report published by the BBC showing that tropical forests were being destroyed at the fastest recorded rate over the last year, was frightening, with the prospect of total forest dieback and "savannisation" of these areas is a growing risk.

Compounding the loss of old-growth tropical forests in 2024 (estimated to have covered an area as large as Ireland) and the release of their carbon stores, is the loss of the moisture and climate systems maintained by those forest ecosystems, which previously provided localized cooling effects, produced cloud cover and contributed to the atmospheric moisture necessary for rain. These had also helped to brighten the earth, thereby reflecting more of the sunlight that otherwise would cause heating. This moisture and water cycle activity gets destroyed along with the trees, plants and animal life. This climatic loss to broad areas may be having more of a negative feedback effective on the planet's overall warming than has previously been recognized.

Hansen chart 1

Global Surface Temperature Change (published 2/3/25)

This news add yet more data to the alarming report published in February by Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Pushker Kharecha and a team of sixteen other climate scientists plainly titled "Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?  In it, Dr. Hansen's team explains that global temperatures have leaped up more than a half degree (0.7°F or 0.4°C) over the last 2 years, with a total average temperature rise of +1.6°C relative to the temperature at the beginning of last century (the 1880-1920 average). This reflects a temperature rise over the +1.5°C (or 2.7°F) level that we set as our goal for maximum increase. As of the last year, we've already exceeded that level.

These increases have, according to Hansen, baffled Earth scientists, as the increase's magnitude was literally off the charts. There were multiple explanations presented as to what could have caused such a big increase. Declining aerosol pollution was seen as a key contributor, by reducing nuclei that aided cloud formation and thus reflection of sunlight, thereby effectively darkening earth and allowing more heat to be absorbed. These are very troubling and portentious changes that may, in fact, show that feedback effects are already accelerating the heating impacts of our CO2 emissions, such that they no longer follow a direct relationship.

Dr. Hansen's report received considerable criticism both because it departed scientifically from the mainstream's more conservative consensus of a lower rate of warming and climate "sensitivity," as determined by the IPCC, and because it called for "a complement to the IPCC approach" to "avoid handing young people a dire situation that is out of their control." In a response to some of that criticism, Drs. Hansen and Karecha decried the ad hoc opinions, ad hominem attacks and sense that the media has gravitated towards reporting the opinions of just a small handful of scientists, rather than covering the total community and range of analyses, including their own.

Dr. Anatassia Makarieva, an atmospheric physicist, responded to this debate with a substack post titled "On the scientific essense of Dr. James Hansen's recent appeal." In it she agreed with Drs. Hansen and Karecha that many scientists were understating the degree of climate forcing but also shared her sense that many of the climate models in use, including Dr. Hansen's, erroneously ignored the major role of the biosphere in the climate destabilization that we are now experiencing. Which may, she argued, partially explain why none of the models predicted the heat anomaly of the 2023 - 2024 time period. Dr. Makarieva writes:

Why is this [i.e. accurate climate models] so important? Unless external causes of this recent temperature anomaly are identified, we may be dealing with a self-reinforcing process — for example, of reduced cloud cover causing more warming, this warming causing even less clouds and so forth until something truly ugly happens to our planet. But, if so, such a process could be started by many factors and does not necessarily need CO2 to kick off. For example, deforestation-induced reduction of evapotranspiration in the Amazon is associated with extreme heat events. This alone could trigger the warming that could then self-amplify via cloud (or some other) feedbacks.

Climate modelsWhether or not we have permanent self-reinforcing amplification happening with the climate now is being debated, partially thanks to new voices like Dr. Makarieva's, entering the field. What is clear, however, is that the fewer clouds, aerosols, snow cover, sea ice and also more invisible sources of water vapor (such produced by  tropical forests and other natural ecosystems) the darker the earth is and the more sunlight gets through and heats the ground, the oceans and the air. This heating further impacts existing vegetation, ice sheets, permafrost and bodies of water negatively, which then also contribute more CO2, more fires, and further darkening of earth's surface. Earth's climate has been in a state of equilibrium for eons. Given what is happening with the climate now, it appears that it is leaving that state of equilibrium.

According to some reports, the Earth has "dimmed" by 0.5% in the past 25 years.  We've known this and scientists have been able to track decreases in sea ice at the poles, a major factor in global warming. We're now seeing the climate effects of reductions in aerosols (due to the shipping industry trying to clean up their act and emit less aerosols), and we're seeing reduced cloud cover.  The bottom line is that even just looking at cloud feedbacks, the more the climate warms, the fewer the clouds. The fewer the clouds, the more the planet warms. This feedback loop is enough to take us into very dangerous territory.  Which is yet another reason why we want to prevent the loss of tropical forests, not just because of the CO2 impacts but because of the cloud and water vapor impacts. This feedback loop could explain why the rate of heating of the planet has increased beyond what was expected, even by scientists like Zeke Hausfather and James Hansen.

Dr. Hansen continues to urge immediate action and has proposed that "a multitude of actions are required within less than a decade to reduce and even reverse Earth’s energy imbalance for the sake of minimizing the enormous ongoing geoengineering of the planet; specifically, we will need to cool the planet to avoid consequences for young people that all people would find unconscionable."


References:

BBC, Tropical forests destroyed at fastest recorded rate last year, by Mark Poynting and Esme Stallard, May 20, 2025.

Columbia University, Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, "Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?, published in Taylor & Francis, February 3, 2025 by James E. Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, George Tselioudis, Joseph Kelly, Susanne E. Bauer, Reto Ruedy, Eunbi Jeong, Qinjian Jin, Eric Rignot, Isabella Velicogna, Mark R. Schoeberl, Karina von Schuckmann, Joshua Amponsem, Junji Cao, Anton Keskinen, Jing Li, and Anni Pokela

Biotic Regulation and Biotic Pump Substack, "On the scientific essense of Dr. James Hansen's recent appeal." by Dr. Anatassia Makarieva, an atmospheric physicist, May 19, 2025.

March 27, 2025

US States’ Nuclear Initiatives

Nuclear initiatives

As we reported in a post titled "States vying to host nuclear development," most U.S. States—along with many countries—recognize that nuclear power is vital to every jurisdiction's ability to generate reliable and clean power and that demand for nuclear is going to grow. Accordingly, many U.S. States have begun efforts to attract nuclear developments and nuclear power developers so as to both gain the additional power being added and the economic development benefits of hosting some portion of this growing sector.  Now that AI development has sent Big Tech out in search of locations to build new data centers, which require massive amounts of energy, the race to attract nuclear power has grown even fiercer.  There are so many developments, it would not be practical to post each individual state's initiatives separately. Thus, we are using this page to try to provide current updates on each state's nuclear initiatives, listed alphabetically.


Arizona

Arizona, home to one of the country's largest nuclear power plants, lawmakers are considering a utility-backed bill to relax environmental regulations if a utility builds a reactor at the site of a large industrial power user or a retired coal-fired power plant..

California

Alone among the most populated, industrial and progressive U.S. states, California remains mired in antiquated antinuclear politics. Although there is a large fraction of advanced nuclear innovation happening at startups located in California, California’s moratorium on new nuclear plants will force these ventures to seek alternative states in which to build their technologies. California’s leadership has shown no interest in competing to win the race to attract all of the talent, federal funding, jobs and economic development that will accompany the growth of this innovative sector and, by all appearances, the state has now fallen behind Texas, Wyoming, Illinois, New York and even Connecticut.

But, there are signs of attitudinal shifts happening even in deep blue California. Both California’s progressive Governor, Gavin Newsom, who for years workd to force the retirement of Diablo Canyon, and the state’s legislature reversed their decisions at the last minute and delayed the closure of the nuclear facility for five more years. They recognized, if reluctantly, that the plant had reliably provided almost 20% of the state’s zero-emission power and 8% of its electricity for decades. Shutting it down would expose the state to dire and life-threatening power outages without the plant’s high capacity-factor reliability and highly differentiated, non-intermittent generation. It would also set back progress on the state’s climate goals.

Sadly, despite several attempts over the years by elected legislators to bring the state into competitive parity with the country and do away with its 49-year old nuclear moratorium, make exceptions for SMRs, and/or conduct feasibility studies about SMRs, these bills have not made it out of committee. Thus, the state appears poised to miss out on the energy revolution made possible by next-generation nuclear, even with many advanced nuclear ventures being located in California.

Connecticut

Connecticut has a state-wide ban but passed an exception in 2022 that allows more nuclear construction at the site of the state’s one operating nuclear power plant, the Millstone Power Station. This specifically allows Dominion Energy to build advanced nuclear at the Millstone site. Dominion has shown interest in SMRs and recently announced a deal with X-energy to build their advanced design, in partnership with Amazon.

Illinois

One of the largest nuclear generating states, Illinois produces 53% of its electricity (and 90% of its clean energy) from nuclear power, and recently passed HB 2473, lifting the state’s moratorium on building new nuclear reactors—but only for small modular reactors (SMRs) rated for 300 megawatts or less. This measure was signed by Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat.

Indiana

Indiana lawmakers passed legislation to let utilities more quickly seek reimbursement for the cost to build a modular reactor, undoing a decades-old prohibition designed to protect ratepayers from bloated, inefficient or, worse, aborted power projects.

Maine

Maine, which has not had an operating nuclear power plant since 1996, considered a bill to classify nuclear power as “clean,” to thus qualify it for carbon credits and other preferential treatment.

Maryland

Maryland joined the National Association of State Energy Officials’s Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative, or ANFMI, to develop supportive policies, coordinate with private stakeholders, and work toward unique procurement and financing options for nuclear energy projects. Meanwhile, lawmakers in Maryland are considering a bill that would include nuclear power in a new zero-emissions credit program, creating an additional revenue stream for nuclear projects there. 

Michigan

Michigan has worked to protect and increase its nuclear power and sits at the forefront of resurgent state interest in nuclear energy. Michigan’s Democratic Governor, Gretchen Whitmer, worked to prevent the closure of the Palisades nuclear power plant. But, when a mechanical problem forced the plant’s sudden closure, the state legislature agreed to put $150 million toward the potential restart of Palisades, in what would be the US’ first-ever restart of a shuttered generating station. Under the Biden Administration’s Civil Nuclear Credit program, the plant subsequently received a $1.5 billion conditional loan commitment from the U.S. Department of Energy, to help fund the repairs and restart and potentially enable Holtec to build several SMRs on the site as well. Michigan lawmakers are also considering millions of dollars in incentives to develop and use the reactors, as well as train a nuclear industry workforce.

New York

New York has no statewide restriction but still has a narrow ban on new reactor development in the service territory of the Long Island Lighting Company, which covers Nassau, Suffolk and some of Queens counties. Although New York’s disgraced former governor, Andrew Cuomo, forced the premature closure of Indian Point which eliminated 80% of the then available clean energy for downstate New York, New York’s current Governor, Kathy Hochul appears to be bringing nuclear back. She announced the state’s largest and most ambitious initiative to tackle the climate crisis with a new master plan. This includes a commitment of $1 billion by the state and specifically includes NYSERDA’s Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Energy Technologies, which outlines a process for the inclusion of advanced nuclear in the state’s Master Plan consideration process. Additionally, New York State will co-lead a multi-state initiative to support nuclear refurbishment and new nuclear development. This seems to place New York State firmly in the race to attract next-generation nuclear developers. New York joined the National Association of State Energy Officials’s Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative, or ANFMI.

New York issued a request for information from “entities either already pursuing, or interested in pursuing, a potential role in advanced nuclear energy technology development” and an interim “blueprint” for nuclear power deployment as it prepares to release a more comprehensive nuclear “master plan”. Constellation Energy said that, with support from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, it would apply for a federal grant to seek an early site permit “for one or more advanced nuclear reactors” at its 1,907-MW Nine Mile Point Clean Energy Center near Oswego, New York. 

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania joined the National Association of State Energy Officials’s Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative, or ANFMI, to develop supportive policies, coordinate with private stakeholders, and work toward unique procurement and financing options for nuclear energy projects.

Tennessee

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee proposed allocating more than $90 million to help subsidize a Tennessee Valley Authority project to install several small reactors, boost research and attract nuclear tech firms. As a long-time proponent of the TVA’s nuclear project, Lee also launched Tennessee’s Nuclear Energy Fund in 2023, designed to attract a supply chain, including a multibillion-dollar uranium enrichment plant billed as the state’s biggest-ever industrial investment.

Texas

Texas prides itself on being the “energy capital of the world.”  It is setting itself up to become the “epicenter” for deployment of advanced nuclear and has taken some impressive steps to achieve this goal. In the aftermath of Winter Storm Uri, which resulted in extended power outages that caused many cold-related fatalities, an industry group got together to form the Texas Nuclear Alliance, dedicated to the advancement of nuclear technology in Texas and a mission to make Texas the “Nuclear Capital of the World.” TNA’s underlying premise was that, to meet the need for low-carbon and reliable energy, Texas could not afford to turn its back on “clean, safe, reliable and secure” nuclear energy.

By late 2023, Texas Governor, Greg Abbott, directed the Texas Public Utility Commission to establish a working group to study advanced nuclear.  A year later, in November 2024, the Governor and the PUCT announced the release of the Texas Advanced Nuclear Reactor Working Group’s final report on Texas’ plan to build a world-leading advanced nuclear power industry.  The report’s multiple goals sought to enhance electric reliability and energy security, promote economic development, and unleash new opportunities for the growing Texas workforce. In commenting on the PUC’s report, Governor Abbott said:

“Texas is the energy capital of the world, and we are ready to be No. 1 in advanced nuclear power. By utilizing advanced nuclear energy, Texas will enhance the reliability of the state grid and provide affordable, dispatchable power to Texans across the state. As we build an advanced nuclear industry in our great state, we will ensure Texas remains a leader in energy and strengthen the Texas grid to meet the demands of our growing state.”

If you click on the report image on the right, it takes you directly to the report package, which is a thing of beauty. The Executive Summary finds five key benefits to making Texas the epicenter of advanced nuclear in the U.S.:  1) Enhance energy security; 2) Improve grid reliability; 3) Expand economic development opportunities; 4) Capture first-in-nation advantages that bring jobs, revenue and industrial growth; and 5) Capture international trade opportunities as the world works to triple the amount of nuclear available by 2050.

How will Texas take this lead?  By doing what Texas does best: cutting “red tape” and establishing major “incentives” to “attract investments,” accelerate advanced nuclear deployments and overcome regulatory hurdles.  It’s a very good plan . . . and far exceeds efforts by any other state to attract advanced nuclear development to itself.

Best of all, Texas isn’t merely posturing. The Texas Nuclear Alliance has partnered with the Texas A&M University System (TAMUS, which boasts eleven universities, eight agencies and an enormous 2100 acre parcel of land called the Rellis Campus devoted to supporting technology innovation) and announced that they have selected four advanced nuclear ventures to build their own advanced reactor at Texas A&M. These companies, called TNA Founding Members, include: Kairos PowerNatura ResourcesTerrestrial Energy and Aalo Atomics. These companies responded to an RFP in the summer of 2024 to bring their designs to the Rellis campus and were accepted. While there are unknowns about what this selection means for these companies, solving the siting issue can provide a significant advantage in the highly competitive race to be the first to deploy. [Click here to see how beautifully Texas A&M promotes the Rellis campus.]

Utah

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox announced “Operation Gigawatt” to double the state’s electricity generation in a decade. He wants to spend $20 million to prepare sites for nuclear. State Senate President J. Stuart Adams told colleagues when he opened the chamber’s 2025 session that Utah needs to be the “nation’s nuclear hub.”

Virginia

Virginia’s recent pro-nuclear moves include state funding for an energy “career cluster” and a state-supported energy lab that help enable deployment of advanced nuclear reactors near former coal mines. These efforts are designed to attract workers, jobs and investments by companies in the growing advanced nuclear sector, which is poised to begin building SMRs at the country’s already shuttered and retiring coal plants. Dominion Energy issued a request for proposals for a possible small modular reactor deployment at its 1,892-MW North Anna Power Station and subsequently announced a memorandum of understanding with Amazon to support the Virginia project. Virginia joined the National Association of State Energy Officials’s Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative, or ANFMI, a regional initiative.

West Virginia

West Virginia joined the National Association of State Energy Officials’s Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative, or ANFMI, to develop supportive policies, coordinate with private stakeholders, and work toward unique procurement and financing options for nuclear energy projects.

Wisconsin

In Wisconsin, several lawmakers introduced a resolution calling on the Legislature to publicly support nuclear power and fusion energy. They intend that the state, in passing the resolution, makes what could be deemed a formal declaration that Wisconsin is open for nuclear industry business.

Wyoming

Wyoming, seen as an “early mover,” is one state that began laying the groundwork to attract and build next-generation nuclear prior to 2020, when Republican Gov. Mark Gordon, signed a bill forbidding coal plants to close but allowing small modular reactor capacity to replace the coal generation capacity. Subsequent legislation in 2022 and 2023 provided regulatory streamlining for advanced reactor deployment and authorized the state to match private funds up to  $150 million. These actions helped the state win over TerraPower, the advanced nuclear venture owned by Bill Gates, which is now building infrastructure for what may be the first advanced nuclear power plant near the site of a retiring coal-fired power plant, in Kemmerer, Wyoming. It helped Wyoming a lot that Bill Gates was then close friends with Warren Buffet whose Wyoming-based company, PacifiCorp, owns many struggling coal plants and so found a site they were willing to let TerraPower use. Wyoming joined the National Association of State Energy Officials’s Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative, or ANFMI, to develop supportive policies, coordinate with private stakeholders, and work toward unique procurement and financing options for nuclear energy projects.

 


[Note, we endeavor to keep this article updated with more recent information.]

 

Sources

  1. Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott, Texas Leads As Energy Capital Of The World In 2024December 27, 2024.
  2. Texas Nuclear AllianceTexas Nuclear Alliance Members Selected to Build Nuclear Reactors at Texas A&M University System’s RELLIS Campus, press release of 2/4/25 by the Texas Nuclear Alliance and Time to Build. (See video of the announcement.)
  3. Texas Advanced Nuclear Reactor Working Group, Deplying a World-Renowned Nuclear Industry in Texas: Considerations and Recommendations for ActionNovember 18, 2024.
  4. DOE, Office of Nuclear Energy, What is a Nuclear Moratorium?  Sept. 20, 2024
  5. Governor Kathy Hochul, Governor Hochul Commits More Than $1 Billion to Tackle the Climate Crisis – the Single Largest Climate Investment in New York’s History, January 14, 2025.
  6. CALMatters, Artificial intelligence is bringing nuclear power back from the dead — maybe even in California, by Alex Shultz, January 30, 2025.
  7. NYSERDA, Blueprint for Consideration of Advanced Nuclear Energy Technologies, January 2025
  8. LexisNexisStates Take Another Look at Nuclear Power to Combat Climate ChangeDec. 17, 2023.
  9. Associated PressMajority of US states pursue nuclear power for emission cuts, by Jennifer McDermott, Jan. 18, 2022.
  10. Utility Dive, As states increasingly look to advanced nuclear, Wyoming, Virginia and Michigan lead the wayby Brian Martucci, April 17, 2024.
  11. Stateline, Federal money could supercharge state efforts to preserve nuclear powerby Alex Brown, February 12, 2024.
  12. Hannah RitchieData Explorer: US State-by-State Electricity Sources, updated in 2025.
  13. Wisconsin Public Radio, 2 GOP state lawmakers pushing to advance nuclear energy in Wisconsin, by Joe Schultz, Feb. 13, 2025
  14. Seattle Times, New wave of smaller, cheaper nuclear reactors sends US states racing to attract the industry, by Marc Levy, Mar. 28, 2025
  15. UtilityDive, As offshore wind struggles, is advanced nuclear a viable Plan B for Eastern states? by Brian Martucci, March 27, 2025

March 19, 2025

Benefits of Nuclear

Nucleation’s listing of the notable benefits of nuclear power in helping secure and stabilize the world’s energy supplies in a zero-emission economy, while posing the least amount of ecologic impact, cost and materials burden.

November 1, 2024

Assessing the Election’s Impacts on Nuclear

By Valerie Gardner, Nucleation Capital Managing Partner

Kh v dt.png

Presidential elections are always important and this year's election is widely considered particularly critical and unusual.  There are vast differences of opinion on matters of great national importance—from voting rights and health policies to international relations and national security policies. Less well litigated is where these candidates stand on matters of energy security, the energy transition and future deployments of both traditional and advanced nuclear power. How will the differences in character, knowledge and respect for facts, science and experts play out on U.S. policies towards nuclear power?  Based upon various sources, it appears that the election will have a significant impact. For those still making up their minds, this summary assessment may help clarify how numerous pundits view these differences.

Summary

Nuclear energy has enjoyed enduring bipartisan support across both Democratic and Republican administrations for years now. The Congress has passed, with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, bills aimed at modernizing and accelerating commercialization of new nuclear.

Nevertheless, in 2024, the two presidential candidates bring potentially unconventional approaches that may differ from the standard positions of their respective parties. Republicans have long valued America's nuclear capacity and have seen the need for the US to maintain leadership to boost both national security and to expand our ability to export our technologies. They recognize that the U.S. needs to counter the geopolitical influence of adversaries like Russia and China which are offering to help developing nations with nuclear power as a means of increasing their influence within those countries.

Democrats have also, if more recently, come around to support nuclear. Both the Obama White House and the Biden Administration have provided broad support for the industry and particularly for the acceleration of next-generation nuclear technologies and American leadership in the energy transition. Front and center of their support is the recognition that nuclear power is a critical, differentiated component of a reliable, 24/7 low-carbon energy grid. They support its expansion primarily as a mechanism to meet growing energy needs and fortify grid reliability while reducing carbon emissions and addressing climate change, in tandem with renewables.

The question then of which candidate is more likely to support the continued acceleration of nuclear power is thus wrapped up with policies relating to energy security, fossil fuels, geopolitical competition with Russia and China, and support for addressing climate change. The Inflation Reduction Act passed in 2022 and signed by President Biden marked the Congress' single largest investment in the economy, energy security and climate change and is widely seen as the most important piece of climate legislation ever passed. It simultaneously rebuilds the U.S. industrial capabilities while incentivizing the growth of clean energy technologies including domestic nuclear power. It is already making an enormous and beneficial impact on the U.S. nuclear indsutry.

Kamala Harris, while possibly more progressive than Biden, has shown her support for Biden's approach to incentivizing the clean energy transition through the IRA, Biden's signature piece of climate legislation, which has received staunch support from industry. She is unlikely to make many if any changes to the IRA's clean energy technology-neutral Investment Tax Credits and Production Tax Credits or reduce the billions in loan guarantees available through the Loan Program Office, which have already stimulated significant investment in protecting and restarting existing reactors.

Because of Biden’s Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act’s Civil Nuclear Credit program, California is proceeding with the relicensing of Diablo Canyon, Holtec has chosen to restart, rather than decommission, Michigan’s Palisades nuclear power plant, Constellation has inked a deal with Microsoft to restart Three Mile Island Unit 2, and NextEra Energy is actively considering the restart of Duane Arnold. Meanwhile, Google has signed a deal to buy power from advanced nuclear reactors being designed by Kairos Power and Amazon has signed a similar deal with X-energy, marking the first corporate purchases of next-generation nuclear, thanks to highly motivating tax and financing incentives available through the IRA and LPO.

Harris is clearly committed to addressing climate change. There is no evidence that she rejects the clean energy tech-agnostic approach developed during her term as Vice President, which levels the playing field for nuclear energy as a clean energy source. Harris recognizes the geopolitical importance of America's ability to compete with Russia to produce our own nuclear fuel supply and to provide nuclear technologies to developing nations seeking to build their clean energy capacity but wanting to remain free of Russian or Chinese influence.

In contrast, Donald Trump has repeatedly called climate change a "hoax," and/or a good thing and cares little about reducing U.S. or global emissions. He previously walked away from the Paris accord and would likely try to repeal, roll back or dilute the IRA. He's publicly allied himself with the fossil fuel industry and—in exchange for donations—has promised to roll back EPA regulations and help them "drill, drill, drill."

There is almost no doubt that Trump would step the U.S. away from its leadership role on climate and this time, that may mean reversing the U.S.'s pledge to triple the amount of nuclear power. This would seriously undermine both the U.S. nuclear industry's momentum to expand to meet growing demand as well as international progress. Given Trump’s overt courting of Putin, he may be disinclined to rebuild the U.S.'s nuclear fuel production capacity or seek to accelerate or support American efforts to build nuclear projects internationally in competition with Russia.

None of this would be good for nuclear power. Any potential efforts to rollback the IRA would slow restoration, development and deployment of reactors. Boosting the fossil fuel industry, whether through supporting expanded access to federal land or price manipulation to improve profitability would have severe impacts on the energy transition. Trump's recent acknowledgement that he didn't believe nuclear was safe also belies the stated "commitment" to nuclear energy expressed by his surrogates and gives considerable fodder to those who persist in opposing nuclear. His shoot-from-the-hip, truth-be-damned leadership style and embrace of conspiracy theorists, contrasts starkly with Harris' stated willingness to consult with scientific experts and even give those who disagree with her a seat at the table.

In sumary, Trump's likely propensity to undermine the IRA, oppose climate action and backtrack on US pledges to triple nuclear, his support for expanding fossil fuel production and his continued disdain for science and technical experts, poses extreme risks to the momentum generated within the nuclear sector over the last few years. Trump's ignorance of nuclear energy's exceptional safety performance make him unlikely to provide Oval Office leadership either to the industry or the NRC in support of the bipartisan ADVANCE Act, signed into law by Biden.

In contrast, a Harris Administration would likely remain on the current climate glideslope for leadership, technology-neutral funding and the U.S.'s nuclear tripling momentum as stimulated by the Biden Administration. It may be that a Harris Administration does not prioritize nuclear's growth or add billions in new accelerants as Biden has done, but she will not try to trash it. Having been briefed by senior energy advisors over the last four years about the importance of nuclear, she is well-informed and understands the importance of Biden's initiatives for addressing climate.

Based on this analysis, those who support an expansion of nuclear power and enduring progress towards transitioning away from fossil fuels should thus prefer to see Harris elected, rather than Trump, and the existing policies continued.

Sources

You can find more detailed information about the basis for this Summary Assessment from these sources.

  1. Forbes, Trump Plans To Rescind Funds For IRA Law’s Climate Provisions, But May Keep Drug Price Measures, by Joshua P. Cohen, Sept. 9, 2024.
  2. Bloomberg, US Economy Will Suffer If IRA Repealed, Solar Maker CEO Says, by Mark Chediak, Oct. 22, 2024.
  3. Politico E&E News, Trump cites cost and risks of building more nuclear plants, by Nico Portuondo, Francisco "A.J." Camacho, Oct. 29, 2024.
  4.  Huffington Post, Donald Trump Takes A Skeptical View Of Nuclear Energy On Joe Rogan’s Podcast, by Alexander Kaufman, Oct. 27, 2024
  5. Bloomberg, Trump 2.0 Climate Tipping Points: A guide to what a second Trump White House can—and can't—do to the American effort to slow global warming, by Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Sept. 30, 2024.
  6. Joint Economic Committee, How Project 2025's Health, Education, and Climate Policies Hurt Americans, August 2024.
  7. FactCheck.org, Trump Clings to Inaccurate Climate Change Talking Points, Jessica McDonald, Sept. 9, 2024.
  8. New York Times, Trump Will Withdraw U.S. From Paris Climate Agreement, Michael D. Shear, June 1, 2017
  9. Cipher: Here's how cleantech stacks up in three swing states: Taking stock of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Sept. 3, 2024.
  10. Bloomberg Green, Climate Politics: Double-Punch Storms Thrust Climate Into the US Presidential Race, by Zahra Hirji, Oct. 11, 2024.
  11. New York Times, Biden’s Climate Plans Are Stunted After Dejected Experts Fled Trump, by Coral DavenportLisa Friedman and Christopher Flavelle, published Aug. 1, 2021, updated Sept. 20, 2021
  12. Bloomberg, The Donald Trump Interview Transcript (with quote "Green New Scam"), July 16, 2024.
  13. Google: New nuclear clean energy agreement with Kairos Power, by Michael Terrell, Oct. 15, 2024, and Google's The Corporate Role in Accelerating Advanced Clean Electricity Technologies, Sept. 2023.
  14. The New Republic, Trump Pushes Deranged Idea that Climate Change is Good for Real Estate, by Robert McCoy, Sept. 18, 2024.
  15. Grid Brief: What Was Said About Energy During the VP Debate, JD Vance and Tim Walz Discuss Energy and Climate During VP Debate, by Jeff Luse, Oct. 2, 2024.
  16. CNN: Fact check: Sea levels are already rising faster per year than Trump claims they might rise over "next 497 years', by Daniel Dale, June 29, 2024.
  17. CNN: Fact check: Tramp's latest false climate figure is off by more than 1,000 times, by Daniel Dale, April 2023.
  18. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, YPCCC's Resources on Climate in the 2024 U.S. General Election, by Anthony Leiserowitz, Edward Maibach, Jennifer Carman, Jennifer Marlon, John Kotcher, Seth Rosenthal and Joshua Low, Oct. 8, 2024.
  19. SIGNED: Bipartisan ADVANCE Act to Boost Nuclear Energy Now Law, Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, July 9, 2024.
  20. Rodgers, Pallone, Carper, Capito Celebrate Signing of Bipartisan Nuclear Energy Bill, the ADVANCE Act, July 9, 2024.
  21. The White House, Bill Signed S. 870, July 9, 2024.
  22. Power Magazine, The ADVANCE Act—Legislation Crucial for a U.S. Nuclear Renaissance—Clears Congress. Here's a Detailed Breakdown by Sonal Patel, June 20, 2024
  23. Sidley Austin LLP, Congress Passes ADVANCE Act to Facilitate U.S. Development of Advanced Nuclear Reactors, June 26, 2024.

October 8, 2024

BLUE ENERGY: Accelerating deployments of SMRs

Blue energy logo in blue trans.png

Nucleation announces its investment in Blue Energy's Series A with Fund I

Blue Energy  is working to deploy small modular reactors (SMR) in a unique and cost-effective offshore formation that leverages shipyard manufacturing and existing, mature offshore wind technology to decrease siting difficulty, lower construction costs and increase safety by utilizing the vast cooling power of the ocean. Read Blue Energy's press release about their financing.

Blue Energy recognizes that speed to deployment really matters. By utilizing smaller, simpler and manufacturable SMR technology optimized for this purpose, combined with shipyard production, Blue Energy will have a competitive advantage being able to deploy off-shore at existing nuclear power facilities, where approvals to build already exist. This team has figured out a brilliant “ocean-cooled” deployment strategy that enables it to be technology agnostic and build the emerging SMR market with a more affordable and efficient implementation process, in partnership with existing utilities. Energy Secr. Jennifer Granholm believes nuclear needs to "at least triple,” and the U.S. together with some 25 other nuclear nations have also pledged to triple their nuclear generation as well. More recent estimates from the DOE put the amount of new power needed in the U.S. at 200 GW. Blue Energy’s design is poised to help accelerate this growth and are focused on deploying design that are low-cost, manufacturable and NRC-approved. Recently,  the DOE announced plans to allocate some $900 million towards the deployment of SMRs. We believe that Blue Energy could be an early mover working to leverage this DOE funding and have significant advantage in having an implrementation plan ready to go. According to yet another DOE study, of the 65 nuclear power plant sites in 31 states, there is the potential to install as much as 60 to 95 GW of new capacity at these existing and/or recently retured nuclear power plant sites.  For existing sites which are situated on the coast, Blue Energy's approach can give these sites the potential ability to increase that number by adding new, off-shore sitings. Additionally, we are extraordinarily delighted to share that both the U.S. House of Representative and the Senate reconciled versions of the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act have passed, making sweeping changes to the approval process for new technology in the nuclear energy sector. The ADVANCE Act, more than anything else, seeks to accelerate the deployment of nuclear power, and passed with significant bipartisan majorities in both chambers and is now on President Biden's desk, awaiting his signature. HuffPo calls this the "The Biggest Clean-Energy Bill" since the passage of the IRA, and is designed to turn the NRC into a 21st century regulator. We have written about both House and Senate versions previously, and we will post more information about the final resulting legislation, which Biden is almost certain to sign, on our website shortly.

August 18, 2024

Aalo Atomics: Leveraging DOE R&D

Screenshot 2024 08 18 at 10.42.35 am

Nucleation announces its investment in Aalo Atomic's Series A with Fund I

Aalo Atomics is a group that recognizes the importance of being one of the first to market with an NRC-approved reactor design that can be shipped to customers. They have not only hit the ground running but they have adopted an approach that leverages publicly-funded DOE design and development work that will help to expedite the NRC's approval of the Aalo-1, which will be modeled upon the DOE's MARVEL reactor that is being built now and which will be producing test data within the next few years.

MARVEL, a sodium-potassium-cooled micro-reactor and the first Gen IV design to come out of the national labs in over thirty years, is being built now with completion expected in 2025. The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) expects to complete construction, load fuel in 2026 and begin testing this very pared-down design inside the Transient Reactor Test (TREAT) facility in 2027. Aalo will be well-situated to access the publicly available test data produced by this DOE research program, to provide it with a true competitive advantage when applying for their own NRC license for their comparable design.

In their own words, Aalo is "moving fast and continually hitting significant milestones," having managed to recruit nearly all of their technical team right out of the INL MARVEL program. With that level of highly experience technical expertise on board, they have been able to finish their conceptual design of the Aalo-1, a scaled up version of MARVEL, which they plan to use for their first commercial reactor. Aalo has also signed a siting memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the DOE for a site at the INL so that they have great access to the support team and testing facilities that are increasingly available to developers from the INL and they've set up an office in Idaho Falls for that purpose. Finally, they've already submitted a Regulatory Engagement Plan (REP) with the NRC and have negotiated a preliminary agreement with a potential customer for a fleet of Aalo-1 reactors. This is a pretty good start for a team that had previously raised just over $6 million, prior to closing the current round of $27 million just a few weeks ago. We are impressed by this team's speed, efficiency and competitive strategy and are honored to have joined an impressive group of investors backing them, which includes 50Y, Valor Equity Partners, Harpoon Ventures, Crosscut, SNR, Alumni Ventures, Earth Venture and more. The Aalo team is super-charging their efforts with this financing. They plan to continue to scale their team, adding sales, EPC, manufacturing, fuel and finance talent. They also plan to build a non-nuclear prototype to better refine and demonstrate their design (which we believe is a must in order to make real progress) and they also plan to open a factory headquarters to begin preparations for mass production capability, something that is only possibly because there are existing specifications available from the DOE's MARVEL design now being built.

We expect many more good things to come from this dynamic young team. Read more about Aalo and their Series A financing on their website, or from Bloomberg or Politico Pro.  Follow some additional milestones with reporting from Sonal Patel, of Power Magazine, on Aalo negotiating its first PPA.

 

(Note: Investors who have subscribed to Nucleation's Fund I Q3-2024 will get participation in this investment.)

July 1, 2024

African Nuclear Newcomer Aspirations

Post guest written by Collins K. Wafula, Bungoma Town, Kenya (with editing support from Darius Tirgan)

Introduction

Emerging countries have held discussions regarding the role of nuclear power in their energy mix. As a result, African states have embarked on a joint effort to achieve a nuclear renaissance. However, they face geopolitical tensions and technical incapacity alongside other issues identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Ten African governments are nuclear-ready and have discussed the IAEA’s milestone approach to achieve their nuclear goals and elevate Africa's standing on the global energy map. Examining their energy spectrum and economic capabilities, these nations are keen to collaborate on advanced reactors but struggle to find the right partners. Therefore, for large-scale power and nuclear deployment to succeed, there must be an increase in coordinated efforts and financing to meet the rising African energy demand.

African Energy Demand

Shows the change in total final energy consumption by fuel and sector in the Sustainable Africa Scenario, 2020 - 2030

Africa makes up 17% of the world’s total population but only accounts for 3.4% of global energy consumption, with fossil fuels being the most prominent power source. They generate 91.5% of the African energy grid, with oil and gas producing over 12 times more energy than renewables, despite aiming for climate neutrality by 2050. As of 2023, renewables have produced 62 GW out of Africa’s 245 GW installed capacity, with South Africa contributing 10.62 GW of renewable electricity.

Africa has the least modern energy consumption per capita. However, as the population grows and more people gain access to appliances, power consumption is projected to increase by 1,180TWh over the next decade. Although, increased energy and infrastructure efficiency is estimated to lower energy demand by 230 TWh, 550 TWh of power will be required for universal access to sustainable energy by 2030. The IAEA's Africa Energy Outlook (2022) predicts that energy consumption will increase by one-third between 2020 and 2030.

To meet this rising demand, African countries have approved the African Union Agenda 2063, which provides a growth path over the next five decades. This includes attaining equitable growth and sustainable development in the race to manufacture and enhance energy infrastructure. Initiatives and projects are in place across Africa to power the continent using solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, and other sources.

The question, “Is Africa ready for nuclear energy?” resonates with both the OECD and African nations. However, this should really be, “Is Africa ready to collaborate for a successful nuclear power renaissance?” The answer is yes. South Africa has a commercial nuclear power plant with two reactors in Koeberg, and other African nations are seeking to industrialize agriculture, mining, infrastructure, and other areas in a climate-friendly manner.

There is close competition between nuclear and renewable energy sources in Africa. Uganda has vast hydro resources, Ethiopia has powerful winds, Kenya has enormous geothermal power, and Morocco has widespread solar power. These renewable sources are crucial for meeting Africa's growing energy demands. However, there are still challenges in establishing a strong regional energy system. African nations follow differing energy policies. Kenya anticipates that nuclear power will provide 30% of its electricity by 2037 while constantly readjusting its plans to maximize its safety and security.

Geopolitics and the Energy Crisis in Africa

The African energy crisis is also linked to the geopolitical dynamics reshaping the global energy landscape. With climate change moving the world towards alternative energy sources, Africa has an opportunity to leverage its abundant renewable and nuclear resources.The pursuit of nuclear power could serve as a catalyst for greater regional cooperation and integration across Africa. The shared interests and technical expertise required for safe nuclear operation create incentives for collaboration on regulatory frameworks, skill development, and resource sharing. Strengthening nuclear governance and safety through continentally unified policies will build confidence and trust.

This cooperation also nurtures collective diplomatic capital. Groups like the African Commission on Nuclear Energy promote civil nuclear development as a pathway for sustainable development as opposed to proliferation. These unified positions give African nations greater leverage in non-proliferation discussions with global powers. The threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, however, still looms large in the minds of nations outside Africa. The latent risk of nuclear technology being used for military purposes or nuclear materials falling into corrupt hands raises security concerns. There is also an idea that poor states could collaborate with nations like North Korea given the right monetary and economic incentives.

This geopolitical stigma requires that African nations tread cautiously and work hard to assure the world of their commitment to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Ratifying and adhering to international safeguards, export control regimes, and nuclear safety and security protocols is crucial. Being transparent about their nuclear fuel cycle activities will help foster additional trust. While exercising their sovereign rights to pursue nuclear power for economic development, African countries must pacify the global powers that may impede access to nuclear technology, investments, and fuel supply chains if left unsatisfied by the non-proliferation commitments.

Africa also has a rich uranium resource base that could power its nuclear reactors. For a long time, Namibia has been the largest producer of Uranium in Africa with reserves of up to 470,100 Mt, enough to power a 1GW reactor for a minimum of 1,175 years. Geopolitical tensions in Western Africa have caused Uranium prices to surge, with the spot price nearly doubling to $106 per pound due to Niger's reduced uranium supply impacting France. This comes after the G7 nations pledged to reduce their reliance on civil nuclear-related goods from Russia and diversify their fuel supply sources. It is a race towards sustainable energy which could highly benefit Africa.

At its core, Africa's energy crisis is a humanitarian emergency. Over 600 million people lack reliable access to electricity, one of the biggest barriers to economic mobility and human development today. This energy poverty perpetuates cycles of agrarian minimalism, disease, poor educational outcomes, and marginalization of entire communities and nations. Overcoming this through large-scale electrification via nuclear and renewable sources is imperative for inclusive economic growth and to unlock Africa's potential. Reliable base load power from nuclear energy can catalyze new industrial capabilities, healthcare provisions, education systems, and raise standards of living.

Extroversive Nations Seeking Advanced Reactors

Nuclear newcomer nations have looked at Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology as a solution for the energy crisis due to its lower installation costs compared to traditional nuclear. Other reasons include their flexibility in rural region development, which would greatly benefit Africa as it is 51.76% rural. There has been a rise in collaborative work and events to meet the African energy demand, leading to the World Bank funding $1.3 billion for the Eastern Africa Power Pool (EAPP) and sparking a debate on whether Africa should go nuclear. Interested nations include Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Namibia, Rwanda and Ethiopia. These nations are diversely choosing their collaborative partners through Nuclear Energy Agencies or Commissions, but their goal is still one: to increase their current energy capacity.

These are the current energy generation capacities excluding nuclear:

  • Nigeria 16.38 GW
  • Ghana 5.4 GW
  • Ethiopia 5.2 GW
  • Kenya 3.3 GW
  • Zambia 3.3 GW
  • Tanzania 1.9 GW
  • Uganda 1.8 GW
  • Senegal 1.4 GW
  • Namibia 0.6 GW
  • Rwanda 0.3 GW

The HDI of these nations may not be near the OECD nations, but their electricity access rates tell a different story. In 2022, Ghana had an 88.8% electricity access rate and an 86.8% household electricity access rate. It has been highly active in the nuclear power program and has established a  commitment to explore SMRs.

However, it is also important to mention renewables. Kenya’s renewable capacity is 2.7 GW with an additional 70GW of geothermal potential. Most Kenyans desire other energy sources to fully utilize Kenya’s current grid capacity. Ethiopia has a hydropower potential of 45GW—the second most after the DRC. In Rwanda, a small nation with big ambitions, the Ministry of Infrastructure has projected that 3.8 million households must be connected to the national grid. In 2021, it consumed 1.022 GWh with 58% coming from renewable energy. Nuclear is expected to produce up to an additional 300 MW. South Africa is ready to add 2,500 MW and combat severe power cuts affecting their country. ESKOM’s Koeberg Nuclear Power station is currently going through a refurbishment program to extend its reactor lifespan to 2044/45. Unit 1 shut down but was expected to be back up and running in the summer of 2024, and Koeberg Unit 2 will be coming back online in September 2024 as scheduled.

Developing New Technologies Needs Collaboration  

In an era marked by growing energy demands and climate change, Nuclear newcomer nations stand at a crossroads. With the African population projected to double by 2050 and rapid urbanization driving increased energy consumption, the continent faces a pressing need for sustainable and reliable power sources. Amidst this backdrop, nuclear energy is a promising solution, offering a low-carbon alternative capable of meeting Africa's energy needs while fostering economic development.

Ghana’s Energy Minister and Deputy Power Director, Robert Sogbadji, has listed the foreign companies vying for the prospective nuclear power plant project for Ghana. They include France’s EDF, US-based NuScale Power and Regnum Technology Group, and China National Nuclear Corporation. Other companies vying for the project include South Korea’s Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), its subsidiary Korea Hydro Nuclear Power Corporation, and Russia’s ROSATOM. These companies are essential for providing the funding and regulatory support necessary to develop and manage successful nuclear energy programs. To sustain this new technological outpour, African countries are developing a skilled workforce capable of managing and operating nuclear facilities while ensuring safe and secure operations.

But there is no great development without resistance. The public and key activists, like Kenyan Phyllis Omida, echo the nuclear waste mantra. They are desperate to keep nuclear out of Kenya. Some politicians are resisting the project due to the high initial cost, and engineers are unsure if they can manage innovative technologies. New companies are encouraged to offer training and resolve these concerns, so nuclear programs remain a priority. Furthermore, Africa's new energy system aims to be powered by renewable and nuclear energy.

Nuclear is also gaining popularity at business and climate conventions, such as the Conference of the Parties (COP), as a sustainable energy source for Africa and the rest of the globe. Countries in Africa require clean and inexpensive energy. However, there are significant challenges in establishing the correct partners and energy policies. Do they support energy independence but compromise with coal? Which nation or nations are best suited to collaborate with specific African states?

Bringing nuclear into the energy mix can help nations like Burkina Faso, one of the least electrified countries in the world with only 20% power access, develop and industrialize. However, political incoherence is preventing collaborations with OECD states. The future of nuclear energy in Africa is a multifaceted endeavor involving holistic approaches and technologies aimed at ensuring sustainability, accessibility, and reliability.

Advancing Nuclear for Energy Independence

Nuclear power is especially appealing to African nations because it satisfies one of the most important cornerstones of economic and national security: energy independence. For years, African nations have heavily relied on imported fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and coal to fulfill their energy requirements. This dependency has left them highly susceptible to the unpredictable nature of energy markets’ price fluctuations, which are influenced by geopolitical factors, disruptions in supply chains, corruption and other external variables.

This absence of self-sufficiency has significantly hindered Africa’s ability to progress forward. Relying on imported fuels depletes foreign exchange reserves, limiting resources for investment in vital sectors like infrastructure, healthcare, and education. Furthermore, excessive reliance on suppliers raises concerns about security as energy sources may be exploited for influence or disrupted during conflicts. Nuclear power would allow African countries to break this cycle of energy dependence.

Domestically produced nuclear power does this by providing a consistent, self-controlled supply source. This newfound autonomy unlocks significant economic benefits through lower and more stable electricity costs for industries and households. A reliable power supply enables new industrial activities, attracts investment, catalyzes job creation, and bolsters economic growth. Additionally, stable and affordable electricity is a prerequisite for improving quality of life through the electrification of homes, schools, and hospitals.

Furthermore, nuclear energy can be a pathway to self-sufficiency since African countries possess abundant uranium reserves. By developing nuclear programs and fuel cycle capabilities, nations like Niger, Namibia, and South Africa could leverage these supplies to achieve total energy independence as well as greater economic activity. Instead of exporting raw uranium, they could capture more value by enriching it to fuel level and using it in domestic reactors.

This shift could lead to the emergence of high-tech industries, the creation of employment opportunities, export revenues, and a reduction in imported energy expenses. A true 'resource blessing.' Nations could enhance their expertise in engineering, manufacturing components, and managing the fuel cycle efficiently. Technological advancements and the development of capital stemming from initiatives would enhance innovation and progress across various sectors.

Nuclear power plays a key role in helping African countries lessen reliance on imports, strengthen energy security, decrease energy expenses, and utilize their uranium resources for complete self-reliance. This enables them to move away from the "resource curse" of exporting materials. Though requiring high initial investment, the lasting advantages include energy self-sufficiency, sustainable progress, and increased economic autonomy.

Thus, Africa is working closely with nations around the world to develop nuclear reactors that will be cost-effective and flexible. Most of the discussion revolves around small modular reactors (SMRs), nuclear fuel design and production, medical isotope production, reactor safety analysis, robotics, and human resource development; many African nations question if they should be the first with a “new design,” due to the uncertainty of their safety. Additionally, these countries are considered poor nations, focused on establishing national grids as their main concern. However, a grid capacity of less than 10GW cannot serve a 1GW nuclear power plant, hence the focus on designs for smaller reactors. The lack of developed energy grids has become a major challenge in the nuclear transition.

Despite this, many countries are still assisting Africa with advanced reactors. The most notable is Russia, having made agreements with Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Nigeria, Ghana, Ethiopia, Sudan, Zambia, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, and Uganda. China, South Korea, Canada, and the USA are also willing to help.

ROSATOM is actively engaging with Africa, South Asia, and Latin America to develop Floating Power Reactors capable of being deployed across coasts and delivering nuclear energy to inaccessible areas. Of these FPRs, the RITM-200 has power capacities of 100 and 106 MW. Egypt has already started a $30 billion 1.2GW VVER at El-Dabaa and has received $25 billion from ROSATOM. Kenya signed an MoU with the USA-based Holtec Company for an SMR-160 design but may focus on developing a research reactor first.

The USA also recently announced that they will assist Ghana with SMR deployment through an MoU with NuScale. This MoU seeks to provide a NuScale Energy Exploration (E2) center and other related services at the Ghana Atomic Energy Commission (GAEC). The USA is the first country to offer training for African engineers in lieu of the IAEA’s standards for SMR deployment.

IAEA, the Watchdog

From the IAEA

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), based in Vienna, is the international agency charged with watching over activity involving nuclear energy. Their mission is "to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world’.’ As such, African nuclear newcomer nations have received great support from the IAEA through its milestone approach. However, a potential issue is whether the African nations would be held to the same standards as the OECD states, given that the requirements may be “too much” for such poor states. The IAEA is working closely with these states to map out the pathways towards potential nuclear builds, including identifying suitable locations for reactors, establishing a clear set of infrastructural rules, and eventually, guidance on bidding on and install these reactors.

These nations are also subject to the Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Reviews (INIR), which began in 2009, and many are eagerly attending training programs to help them achieve their nuclear goals.

Before the IAEA begins Phases 1, 2, and 3 of their Milestone approach to develop a country's nuclear power infrastructure, the national energy strategy must already include a nuclear power option. Uganda wants to generate 1GW by 2031, but they have another strategy to develop an additional 1GW by 2040. Ghana plans to issue a Request for Information (RFI) in 2024 to choose a partner for their nuclear power program. Rwanda began collaborating with Dual Fluid, a Canadian SMR business, in 2023, with the goal of establishing a research reactor by 2026. The Rwanda Atomic Energy Board (RAEB) has approved their feasibility study, which is scheduled for completion in August 2024. Kenya is still in Phase II of the IAEA milestone approach, having completed the INIR in 2015 and 2021. MoUs with China, South Korea, and the United States have demonstrated strong commitments to nuclear energy. Finally, Nigeria has invited the IAEA to conduct its second INIR, aiming to achieve the nuclear power strategy outlined in the National Energy Master strategy (NEMP).

Cost Concerns and Conclusion

Much of the objection to nuclear from the continent pertains to perceptions of its high costs. While the initial investment for constructing nuclear power facilities is notably high, the fact is that when the lifetime operating expenses and unique benefits of nuclear energy (high degree of reliability and operating capacity factors, long facility lifespan, stable prices, economic and educational ripple effects, negligible pollution or climate impacts and energy independence) , nuclear power emerges as one of the most cost-effective and beneficial sources of electricity generation, especially in a world that emphasizes reducing carbon emissions.

The high initial investment for nuclear plants is due to the historically massive construction process, requiring specialized talent, special equipment, robust safety protocols and systems, as well as a highly stringent regulator to conduct frequent inspections, which requirements all drive up costs. However, once a plant is operational, the fuel costs are remarkably low compared to fossil fuels. Uranium fuel is extremely energy-dense, and a single pellet can generate as much electricity as a ton of coal. This allows nuclear plants to operate with low fuel expenses over multi-decade lifetimes.

As per estimates by the IAEA, the levelized cost of introducing nuclear power systems in Africa falls within the range of $60 to $100 per megawatt-hour (MWh). Though this may appear steep, it stands on par with generation costs from fuels in African nations when factoring in greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution repercussions, and forthcoming policies on carbon pricing designed to curb emissions. Even now, the average LCOE for coal power in South Africa was about $75/MWh as of 2020 and is expected to continue rising with tighter environmental regulations. Meanwhile, nuclear costs would remain steady over 60–80-year reactor lifetimes. These economics increasingly favor nuclear over time.

Moreover, nuclear power offers a key advantage of price stability that fossil fuels lack. Once the initial capital is paid, operating costs are predictable due to low and stable fuel costs. In contrast, coal and gas plants are exposed to volatile global fuel markets with a history of major price shocks. When this price volatility gets factored into these Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) analyses, nuclear power's price advantage becomes even more compelling. Adding in both the benefits of energy security and nuclear low-carbon generation in a carbon-constrained future in which emissions result in economic penalties, the zero-emission profile of nuclear energy further improves its competitive strength.

Finally, it is apparent that deploying Gen IV reactors that are smaller, modular and which can be shipped to locations for more rapid assembly, could further reduce capital costs through economies of scale from factory manufacturing and reduced financing costs. For these, financing vehicles like public-private partnerships and energy banks can also help Africa access capital for major nuclear builds at levels far less than what has long been required for traditional nuclear builds.

So, while the price seems high initially, the total lifetime costs, price stability benefits, lack of emissions, and long-term economic payoffs make nuclear a compelling investment for African nations serious about energy security and sustainable development. With proper financing, nuclear power can be an affordable source of energy independence. Smaller designs with a shorter lifespan are cheaper to install, making them affordable for all.

In conclusion, Nuclear energy, while still posing significant challenges, remains a credible path for rapidly scaling Africa's electrification and catalyzing economic transformation, if the geopolitical tensions can be successfully navigated. With transparent governance and innovative international partnerships, nuclear power can be a blessing for human development across the continent and enable Africa to bring electricity and economic development to all people, while avoiding the detriments posed by increased reliance on fossil fuels.

* * *

Collins Wafula is a young graduate of Maseno University's School of Environment and Earth Sciences, where he studied Geography and Natural Resources Management along with Information Technology. With a passion for addressing energy and climate issues through nuclear power, he successfully leverage technologies (like LinkedIn) to connect with others, including the WePlanet team, a global grassroots movement  campaigning for radical science-backed solutions to the climate and nature emergency, and Nucleation Capital, all while remaining in his home village of Bungoma, Kenya. Collins represents the best of technology-empowered youth connecting globally to solve local problems. He is on the forefront of Kenyans working to leverage next-generation nuclear power to improve access to sustainable and clean energy for his country and other Africans.

[Note: Editing support for this article provided by Darius Tirgan, Nucleation Capital's 2024 Summer Associate.]

References:

  1. Energy Commission Ghana (ECG) (2023). National Energy Statistics Bulletin. https://www.energycom.gov.gh/newsite/index.php/media-center/latest-news/239-national-energy-statistical-bulletin-2023
  2. Orikpete, Ochuko & Egieya, Jafaru & Ewim, Daniel. (2023). Nuclear fission technology in Africa: Assessing challenges and opportunities for future development. Nuclear Engineering and Design. 413. 112568. 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2023.112568.
  3. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2020). Projected Costs of Generating Electricity: 2020 Edition. https://www.iaea.org/publications/14388/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020-edition
  4. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2022). Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2022. https://www.iaea.org/publications/14865/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2022
  5. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2015). Milestones in the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power. No. NG-G-3.1(Rev.1), pg 5-10
  6. Jewell, J. (2011). Ready for nuclear energy? An assessment of capacities and motivations for launching new national nuclear power programs. Energy Policy, 39(3), 1041-1055.
  7. Adam, S. A., Othman, F., Misron, N., & Musa, M. N. (2017). Nuclear energy prospects in Africa: A review. Energy Reports, 3, 236-243.
  8. Whitfield, S. C., Rosa, E. A., Dan, A., & Dietz, T. (2009). The future of nuclear power: Value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis, 29(3), 425-437.
  9. Sovacool, B. K., & Valentine, S. V. (2012). The myths of nuclear energy: Analyzing and debunking oft-repeated claims about nuclear power. Energy Research & Social Science, 3, 24-30
  10. IEA (2022). Africa Energy Outlook 2022. Special Report. International Energy Agency (IEA)
  11. Advancement in African Nuclear Energy: A Comprehensive Overview of 2024 Developments: 2024. https://www.nuclearbusiness-platform.com/media/insights/advancements-in-african-nuclear-energy-a-comprehensive-overview-of-2024-devekopments Accessed:2024-01-31
  12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.10.041
  13. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/others/emerging-nuclear-energy-countries#:~:text=About%2030%20countries%20are%20considering,their%20first%20nuclear%20power%20plants
  14. https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/august-november-2018/africa-ready-nuclear-energy#:~:text=Power%20to%20the%20people&text=Kenya%20is%20considering%20nuclear%20to,for%20the%20country%20by%202030.
  15. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meeting-africas-growing-energy-needs-in-a-sustainable-affordable-and-efficient-way
  16. https://www.dw.com/en/why-africa-relies-on-nuclear-energy-rather-than-solar-energy/a-67152544
  17. https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/energy/nuclear-energy-factsheet#:~:text=Powering%20a%20one%2Dgigawatt%20nuclear,%25%20is%20high%2Dlevel%20waste.
  18. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/others/uranium-in-africa

© 2025 Nucleation Capital | Terms & Policies

Nucleation-Logo