COP28 was something of a highlight for civil nuclear power in the last few years. At last year’s climate summit in Dubai, 22 countries signed an ambitious declaration to triple nuclear power (and renewables generally) by 2050. Three days later, Microsoft published a policy paper contending that the low-carbon electricity generation technology was akin to ‘renewables’ in its eyes.

Since its birth in the 1960s, the civil nuclear power sector has been shunned by some environmentalists because of controversies over the radiation risks of long-term waste and its connections to the nuclear weapons establishment. Its fortunes have also fallen in the aftermath of major nuclear incidents, including Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima Daiichi (2011). But in recent years, some antinuclear organisations have moderated their positions.

The biggest change came in February 2022, when nuclear power (and fossil gas) were added to the European list in the European Union’s Sustainable Finance Taxonomy which guides private-sector investment. At that time, the European Commission said: ‘Taking account of scientific advice and current technological progress, the Commission considers that there is a role for private investment in gas and nuclear activities in the transition.’

A softening of attitudes is also occurring in Canadian provinces, according to Kim Lauritsen, Senior Vice President, Energy Strategy & Energy Markets at Canadian nuclear utility Ontario Power Generation. Lauritsen participated in a panel discussion on finance at the World Nuclear Association’s annual symposium, held 4–6 September 2024. The Canadian province of Nova Scotia cancelled its prohibition on civil nuclear power development in April 2024, and some parties are considering the same in British Columbia, she reports.

‘Taking account of scientific advice and current technological progress, the Commission considers that there is a role for private investment in gas and nuclear activities in the transition.’ – European Commission (February 2022)

Similar changes of heart are occurring amongst institutional investors, reported fellow panellists Vicki Kalb, UBS Global Head of ESG and Sustainability Research, and Seb Henbest, HSBC Group Head of Climate Transition.

Kalb said that while previously some institutional investors had had an ‘exclusionary policy’ about nuclear, that has since ‘definitely changed’. Many finance houses have either lifted anti-nuclear mandates or are talking about lifting them. Similarly, Henbest reports that HSBC recognised the role of civil nuclear power in its own Net Zero Transition Plan, published in spring 2024. He adds: ‘Reputational risk of getting involved in nuclear is much lower than it has been.’

Still concerns   
But concerns remain, mainly revolving around construction risk, Henbest cautions. He said that projects in the US, Europe and the UK are seeing huge overruns, and that increases the cost of capital, which is a worry to bankers.

Achieving recognition among governments of the value of nuclear power has been a huge hurdle to overcome, contended panellist Cosmin Ghita, CEO of partly state-owned Romanian nuclear utility Nuclearelectrica. ‘In Europe, you can now say nuclear out loud without being afraid.’

He went on to argue that nuclear requires support and development from both public and private sectors, as each brings different strengths. While the private sector lacks knowledge or legal enforcement power, the public sector doesn’t have the technology or economic expertise.

On the topic of public-sector financial support, Lauritsen explained that Canadian utility OPG benefits from support at both the province level – which provides a stable and consistent framework – and at federal level. The big change there occurred about a year ago, when the recently-launched Green Bond Framework was opened up to nuclear projects. (It doesn’t end there, she adds, referencing a second bond offered by Export Development Canada for sustainability, among others.)

Such large-scale support is appropriate, argued Ghita at Nuclearelectrica, because civil nuclear power projects tend to build up skills and capacity, in terms of supply chain networks, some of which may be in-country. ‘Nuclear is phenomenal for improving country development,’ he said.

Which is just as well, because it has proven more expensive than renewables. The gap has been so great that Henbest was at pains to emphasise that the battle for bulk electricity had already been lost by the nuclear industry – with the caveat that the primary energy battle between electrons and molecules (from the oil and gas sector) rages on. He advised that when pitching to governments, nuclear developers should focus on a few specific markets to which to apply the technology. What, he asked, is nuclear for? Heavy industry decarbonisation, for hydrogen, or for the tech sector?

What is nuclear for?   
That very question was discussed by a second panel at the symposium, which included speakers from the cement industry and ‘big tech’, and considered industrial applications.

Lou Martinez Sanchez, Westinghouse Chief Technology Officer, said that she is feeling a new sense of dynamism in the market, which she felt is sparking innovation in technology and in contracts. Indeed, civil nuclear business models are changing.

As regards technological innovations, she honed-in on two in particular.

First is digitalisation. While paperless processes have spread through many industries, partly for safety and regulatory reasons, the nuclear industry has tended to lag behind. But she pointed out that the industry collects an immense amount of data, which, properly applied, can be used to improve designs and licensing approval processes (as companies like Westinghouse are now doing).

The second area of innovation is in materials, which can improve construction times by enabling nuclear-grade additive manufacturing (3D printing). Referring to data and materials, she asked rhetorically: ‘Aerospace and automotive are using them all the time. Why can’t we?’

Innovation is also driving another panellist’s employer, but for different reasons. Todd Noe, Microsoft’s Director of Nuclear & Energy Innovation, said that his employer is one of the largest consumers of renewable power, and has signed power purchase agreements (PPAs) for 19 GW of power, and this year signed another 10.5 GW (with Brookfield Renewables) for 2026–2030.

He explained that the company is concerned about how to find power for future data centres. ‘We have gone from easily being able to locate data centres where we needed to. Now there are constrained resources, and we need more of them.’

Noe added: ‘The biggest difference that nuclear brings is firm power. At the end of the day we have to have electrons coming into the data centre. Renewables are a wonderful part of our ‘all of the above’ mix, but we do clearly see there have to be other sources of firm power that’s also clean from a carbon standpoint.’

In March this year, Microsoft joined an alliance with Google and US steel manufacturer Nucor to aggregate electricity demand and fund early-stage development of energy, including advanced nuclear fission, alongside hydrogen, geothermal and long-duration storage. To that end, it launched a request for information (RFI) for some US regions. According to Noe, half of the replies related to nuclear power, and the consortium is pursuing those leads.

At the symposium, he clarified that although Microsoft is not interested in getting into the power generation business, it would consider co-locating a nuclear power plant, such as a small nuclear reactor (SMR) – see Box – at a data centre location, if the limiting factor is the length of time before a grid connection becomes available.

Turning to a more difficult-to-decarbonise industry, the Global Concrete and Cement Association signed a net zero pledge two years ago, which sees it implementing carbon capture and storage (CCS) in increasing scale, according to Cement, Innovation and ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) Director Claude Lorea, another panellist. That includes 10 plants by 2030, and then more deployed at an average expected rate of one a week until 2050.

One example is Norway’s public-private Longship CCS project, which includes Heidelberg Materials, and is set to start up next year.

The only trouble is, CCS will roughly double energy costs and double the costs of the cement production process, she says. The business cases for such plants rely on policies such as carbon taxes that protect them from being undercut by competitor regions that aren’t carbon-constrained.

• Further reading: ‘Small is beautiful: UK plans for SMRs’. As momentum gathers under the UK government’s Nuclear Roadmap, Great British Nuclear (GBN) has selected six companies to advance to the next phase of the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Competition. What’s on offer and how do the technology options differ here and worldwide? asks New Energy World Features Editor Brian Davis.   
• In a surprise announcement, the Czech government selected a South Korean consortium to build two APR1000 reactors at the ČEZ Group-operated Dukovany nuclear power plant, rather than the bid from rival French company based on its EPR1200 reactor design. It is believed to be the first time that a South Korean design would be exported to Europe.