Let’s tackle some of your inquiries regarding advanced nuclear energy. I’ve merged similar questions and refined them for improved understanding.
In what ways do the fuel requirements of next-generation nuclear reactors differ, and how are companies managing the supply chain?
Several next-gen reactors do not utilize the low-enriched uranium found in traditional reactors.
It’s important to focus on high-assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU, specifically. This fuel contains higher levels of fissile uranium compared to typical nuclear fuel, with a ratio of the isotope U-235 ranging from 5% to 20%. (In traditional fuel, this figure is below 5%.)
HALEU can be produced using the same technology as low-enriched uranium, yet the geopolitical landscape is complex. Presently, Russia effectively holds a monopoly on HALEU production. In 2024, the US prohibited the import of Russian nuclear fuel until 2040 to lessen reliance on the nation. Europe, while not implementing the same actions, is also striving to reduce dependence on Russian energy.
This presents a significant challenge for companies in the US and Europe to secure the necessary fuel after their usual Russian supply has been severed or limited.
The US Department of Energy maintains a reserve of HALEU, which the government is distributing to firms to support demonstration reactors. However, in the long run, establishing independent HALEU supply chains for next-generation reactors remains crucial.
What measures are being taken to ensure safety, and what developments are occurring regarding nuclear safety regulation in the US?
Next-generation nuclear plants might offer greater safety than conventional reactors in various ways. Some utilize alternative coolants that eliminate the need for the high pressure characteristic of traditional water-cooled reactors. Many integrate passive safety shutoffs, which allow reactors to shut down without risk of meltdown during power supply issues. (These can also be incorporated into newer standard reactors.)
Nevertheless, certain experts have voiced worries that the current administration in the US is not sufficiently prioritizing nuclear safety.
A recent NPR investigation revealed that the Trump administration covertly altered nuclear regulations, removing environmental safeguards and relaxing safety and security protocols. The new rules were communicated to companies involved in constructing experimental nuclear reactors, but not made public.
This reminds me of a discussion at our EmTech MIT event in November, where Koroush Shirvan, a professor of nuclear engineering at MIT, addressed this topic. “I’ve observed concerning trends lately, with terms like ‘rubber-stamping nuclear projects’ being mentioned,” Shirvan noted during that event.
During his talk, Shirvan presented statistics indicating that nuclear energy has a very low incidence of injury and fatality. However, he emphasized that this safety record is not a given; rather, it is due to rigorous regulatory oversight.
Will next-generation reactors be financially viable?
Constructing a nuclear power facility is quite expensive. Let’s examine the initial investment required for a power plant.
Plant Vogtle in Georgia is home to the newest elements of the US nuclear fleet—Units 3 and 4 commenced operations in 2023 and 2024. Collectively, they incurred a capital cost of $15,000 per kilowatt, adjusted for inflation, according to a recent report from the US Department of Energy. (This specific metric divides the total construction cost of the reactors by their anticipated power output, allowing for comparison across different reactor sizes.)
This figure is notable, primarily because those were the first of their kind built in the US, alongside some inefficiencies in planning. It’s important to recognize that China constructs reactors for significantly less, estimated between $2,000/kW and $3,000/kW.
The initial capital cost for pioneering advanced nuclear facilities is expected to range between $6,000 and $10,000 per kilowatt, as per the DOE report. This could potentially decrease by up to 40% once technologies are scaled and mass-produced.
Consequently, new reactors should (ideally) be more affordable than the over-budget and delayed Vogtle project, yet they may not be substantially cheaper than efficiently constructed conventional plants when adjusted for size.
Building new natural-gas facilities will undoubtedly be less expensive (considering the anticipated equipment shortages extending for years). Currently, the most efficient natural-gas plants cost merely $1,600/kW at the upper end, according to data from Lazard.
An essential note: The capital cost is not the sole consideration—operating a nuclear facility is fairly economical, which explains the strong interest in prolonging the lifespans of existing plants or restarting decommissioned ones.
Ultimately, by various measures, nuclear facilities of every type will likely be pricier than alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar. However, they offer something that many other energy sources do not: a consistent, stable supply of electricity that can last for 60 years or more.
This article originates from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.
