The proponents of nuclear power rely on an excessive optimism which, once again, sits in stark contrast to the reality of the decades-long stagnation the industry worldwide. That contrast is the subject of our new report for the EnergyScience Coalition.

The latest nuclear proposals are built on three speculations, each of which is a castle built on sand. 

First, we have the projected AI-related energy demand. This ignores emerging evidence that such projections are overblown. For example, the new leading AI entrant DeepSeek requires just 10 percent of the energy of competitors. This is a repeat of the claims of the nuclear power proponents of the 1970’s whose projected demand that never eventuated.

Grids

Second, then we see speculative techno-optimism that new technologies such as small modular reactors will resolve industry project management issues. These small reactors are unproven.

Third, finally we note the prospective wish fulfilment, where dozens of nuclear ‘newcomer’ countries are offered as saviours. This is despite the hero countries in a large majority of cases not having reactor approvals and funding in place.

So what is the actual state of nuclear power in 2025? Worldwide nuclear power capacity was 371 gigawatts (GW) at the end of last year. That figure is near-identical to capacity of 368 GW two decades earlier in 2005.

A review by the World Nuclear Industry Status Report notes that seven new reactors were connected to grids last year while four reactors were permanently closed. The net increase in operating nuclear capacity was 4.3 gigawatts (GW).

Ageing reactors

The industry faces a daunting challenge just to maintain its pattern of stagnation, let alone achieve any growth. As of Wednesday, 1 January 2025, the mean age of the nuclear power reactor fleet was 32.1 years. In 1990, the mean age was just 11.3 years. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency projects the closure of 325 GW of nuclear capacity from 2018 to 2050 due simply to the ageing of the reactor fleet ‒ that’s 88 percent of current worldwide capacity. 

There were no ‘small modular reactor’ (SMR) startups in 2024. Indeed there has never been a single SMR startup. If you count so-called SMRs that are not built using factory ‘modular’ construction techniques, then there has still been just one each in China and Russia. 

President Macron said that without nuclear power in France there would be no nuclear weapons, and vice versa.

The SMR sector continues to go nowhere, with further setbacks in 2024. The Nuward project in France has been suspended. This followed previous decisions to abandon four other SMR projects and the bankruptcy of US company Ultra Safe Nuclear. 

Renewables

In striking contrast to nuclear power’s marginal gain of 4.3 GW in 2024, the International Energy Agency’s October 2024 ‘Renewables 2024’ report estimates 666 GW of global renewable capacity additions in 2024. 

Based on the Agency’s estimate, renewables capacity growth was 155 times greater than that of nuclear power. In China, the ratio was 100:1 last year.

The International Energy Agency expects renewables to jump sharply from 30 percent of global electricity generation in 2023 to 46 percent in 2030.

Conversely, nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation has fallen steadily since the 1990s. As of 2025, nuclear power accounted for 9.15 percent of global electricity production, barely half of its peak of 17.5 percent in 1996.

Renewable investments were 21 times greater than nuclear investments. A Bloomberg analysis finds that renewable energy investments reached $US728 billion in 2024, up eight percent on the previous year. This compares with nuclear investment that remains flat at US$34.2 billion. 

Renewable costs have fallen sharply, in contrast to massive cost overruns with nuclear projects. Lazard investment firm data shows that utility-scale solar and onshore wind became cheaper than nuclear power from 2010‒2015. 

From 2009‒2024, the cost of utility-scale solar fell 83 percent; the cost of onshore wind fell 63 percent; while nuclear costs increased 49 percent.

Newcomer

Claims that between 40 and 50 countries are actively considering or planning to introduce nuclear power, in addition to the 32 countries currently operating reactors, do not withstand scrutiny.

At the start of this year reactors were under construction in just 13 countries, two less than a year earlier. Seven percent of the world’s countries are building reactors - 93 percent are not.

Of the 13 countries building reactors, only three are potential nuclear newcomer countries building their first plant: Egypt, Bangladesh and Turkiye. In those three countries, the nuclear projects are led by Russian nuclear agencies with significant up-front funding from the Russian state.

The World Nuclear Association observes that apart from those three countries, no countries meet its criteria of having ‘planned’ reactors: those with “approvals, funding or commitment in place, mostly expected to be in operation within the next 15 years”.

The number of potential newcomer countries with approvals and funding in place, or construction underway, is just three and those projects are funded heavily by the Russian state.

Phase-outs

There is no evidence of a forthcoming wave of nuclear newcomer countries. 

At most there will be a trickle, as has been the historical pattern. There has in fact been just seven newcomer countries over the past 40 years, and just three in the current century.

The number of countries operating power reactors in 1996–1997 reached 32. Since then, newcomer countries have been matched by countries completing nuclear phase-outs and thus the number is stuck at 32. And less than one-third of those countries are building reactors.

It is doubtful whether the number of nuclear newcomer countries will match the number of countries completing phase-outs in 20 to 30 years' time.

Capital strike

Nuclear power just can’t compete economically. The industry’s greatest problem at the moment is a recognition of this by investors, resulting in a capital strike. 

Even with generous government and taxpayer subsidies, it has become difficult or impossible to fund new reactors ‒ especially outside the sphere of China and Russia’s projects at home and abroad.

Who would bet tens of billions of dollars on nuclear power projects when the recent history in countries with vast expertise and experience has been disastrous?

In France, the latest cost estimate for the only recent reactor construction project, the 1.6 GW Flamanville EPR, increased seven-fold from €3.3 billion to €23.7 billion for just one reactor. Construction took 17 years. No reactors are currently under construction in France.

And this problem sits alongside the risk of Fukushima-scale disasters, the risk of weapons proliferation, the risk of attacks on nuclear plants and the risks from the intractable nuclear waste legacy. 

Some of these risks have already come to pass, as with the reality of attacks on nuclear plants in Ukraine.

Bankruptcy

In the US, one project in South Carolina, comprising two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, was abandoned in 2017 after at least US$9 billion was spent. 

Westinghouse declared bankruptcy immediately after the cancellation of the South Carolina project, and its debts almost forced its parent company Toshiba into bankruptcy. All that remains is the nukegate scandal: an avalanche of legal action, including criminal cases.

The only other reactor construction project in the US ‒ the twin-reactor Vogtle project in the state of Georgia ‒ reached completion at a cost 12 times higher than early estimates. The final cost of the Vogtle project was at least US$17 billion per reactor. Completion was about seven years behind schedule.

No power reactors are currently under construction in the US. Thirteen reactors have been permanently shut down over the past 15 years.

Subsidies

The situation is just as bleak in the UK where there have been 24 permanent reactor shut-downs since the last reactor startup 30 years ago, in 1995.

The 3.2 GW twin-reactor Hinkley Point project in Somerset was meant to be complete in 2017 but construction didn’t even begin until 2018. The estimated completion date has been pushed back to as late as 2031. The latest cost estimate ‒ £23 billion per reactor ‒ is 11.5 times higher than early estimates. 

The UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for the Hinkley Point project could amount to A$60.8 billion and the UK Parliament's Public Accounts Committee said that “consumers are left footing the bill and the poorest consumers will be hit hardest.”

The estimated cost of the planned 3.2 GW twin-reactor Sizewell C project in the UK has jumped to nearly £40 billion - or £20 billion per reactor - which is twice the cost estimate in 2020.

Securing funding to allow construction to begin at Sizewell is proving to be difficult and protracted despite a new ‘Regulated Asset Base’ funding model which foists the enormous risk of enormous cost overruns onto taxpayers and electricity bill payers. Securing funding to complete the Hinkley Point project is also proving difficult.

Lessons

France, the US and the UK have vast nuclear expertise and experience. They all enjoy synergies between civil and military nuclear programs ‒ President Macron said in a 2020 speech that without nuclear power in France there would be no nuclear weapons, and vice versa.

All of the above-mentioned construction projects were or are on existing nuclear sites. All projects were or are long delayed and tens of billions of dollars over-budget.

Claims that potential nuclear newcomer countries, without any of those advantages, could build reactors quickly and cheaply are simply not credible.

This Author

Dr Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group.

A report expanding on these issues is posted at the EnergyScience Coalition website. The report is co-authored by Darrin Durant, associate professor in science and technology studies at the University of Melbourne, Jim Falk, professorial fellow in the school of geography, earth and atmospheric sciences at the University of Melbourne and emeritus professor at the University of Wollongong and Dr Jim Green.