Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 627

Fact, fiction and fission: The future of nuclear energy

What role should nuclear power play in the energy mix? Answers to this question have differed across countries and over time. Though policies and uptake across the globe remain varied, there's now growing interest in both established and new reactor technologies – even in some countries that have historically been wary.

The rise of power-hungry artificial intelligence (AI) helps explain some of this renewed interest, but there's also broader recognition that greater nuclear energy capacity could help the world to increase power generation while advancing decarbonisation. We offer four insights to help investors navigate the evolving landscape around nuclear energy and explore investment opportunities.

1. Nuclear energy’s global resurgence is boosted by the need to reconcile competing demands for energy security, reliability and decarbonisation

An “age of electricity” is upon us, “fueled by growing industrial production, rising use of air conditioning, accelerating electrification and an expansion of data centers worldwide,” according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Nuclear energy has emerged as part of the solution to meeting such demand while advancing the energy transition.

A few characteristics excite nuclear energy’s proponents. Nuclear power is low carbon. And it can be produced nearly uninterrupted, providing a steady baseload to complement supply from more variable renewables, such as solar and wind.

Another driver behind nuclear energy’s resurgence was in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This prompted top prioritisation of energy independence and security for many countries, particularly in Europe. This includes shifting policy stances on nuclear power, including in countries that had decided to phase out nuclear after a serious nuclear accident in Japan in 2011 reignited fears about safety. Worries about nuclear accidents remain a key reason behind the reluctance to adopt nuclear power in some countries.

Nuclear power produces about 10% of electricity globally, rising to almost 20% in advanced economies. Globally, its share in electricity generation is expected to remain close to 10% through 2050, according to the IEA's "World Energy Outlook" from 2024. The stable headline number may mask the flurry of activities in the industry, including building new plants and managing ageing reactors in advanced economies, home to most of the world’s nuclear fleet.

Interest in nuclear power comes from countries along the spectrum. The U.S., France and China – the top three nuclear power producers of the world – all have expansion plans. A number of countries in Southeast Asia and Africa are also exploring developing nuclear power. In the latest sign of a global shift, the World Bank is lifting its decades-long ban on funding nuclear energy, and Asian Development Bank is considering a similar move. Investment in nuclear power globally has already risen by 50% worldwide over the past five years. The IEA has projected that global nuclear power capacity will likely rise through 2050. In recent months there has been a steady stream of news on nuclear-related policy changes and nuclear power deals, often involving tech companies.

“Big tech data centers require uninterrupted power 24 hours per day. Of the main types of fuel that can provide uninterrupted power on demand, only nuclear power generates no carbon dioxide emissions. The more committed a tech company is to achieving a carbon neutrality target, the more likely it is to use nuclear power,” says equity portfolio manager Mark Casey.

Figure 1: The world’s going nuclear

Source: IEA. The Path to a New Era for Nuclear Energy. January 16, 2025. The graphic shows the IEA’s forecast for installed nuclear capacity for 2030, 2040 and 2050 under the Stated Policies Scenario, which takes into consideration existing policies and measures, as well as those under development. 2023 figures are actual. The methodology of IEA’s global energy and climate scenarios can be found on the organisation’s website.

2. Investors should stay focused on reality amid the hype about new nuclear technologies

High costs and long lead times are two key challenges in building nuclear power plants, particularly for established market leaders in recent years. Only a handful of nuclear projects have started construction in Western Europe and North America since 2005, and those being built are significantly over budget and delayed. In the U.S., nuclear power plant Vogtle’s units 3 and 4 took 14 years to build – seven years behind schedule – and cost more than US$30 billion, more than double the initial estimate.

Recently, small modular reactors (SMRs) have been touted as a promising solution. In theory, modules of small reactors can be manufactured in factories and assembled on-site relatively easily – cheaper and faster. Proponents argue that SMR technology's size and design features likely limit the extent of any accidental radiation leaks, while also avoiding the risk of catastrophic meltdown.

SMRs’ appeal also stems from their unique use cases, including repurposing coal power plants and supplying electricity in remote communities. Yet SMR technology is neither a panacea nor a quick fix. In the past, there have been attempts to develop small nuclear reactors, and many such projects suffered from poor economics and technical problems. SMRs also come with specific safety challenges related to novel aspects of proposed designs. More recent SMR projects have also experienced cost overruns and delays.

A new generation of small reactors may well be part of the advanced nuclear technology suite, but commercial viability remains years – if not decades – away. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects the first SMR to be available in 2030, with an estimated total overnight cost (total construction cost excluding interest expenses during plant construction and development) exceeding $9,000 per kilowatt – higher than most new electricity-generating technology.

Figure 2: SMRs are being hyped, but they are no bargain

Source: U.S. Department of Energy “Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2025: Electricity Market Module.” April 2025. “Nuclear – traditional” refers to light water nuclear reactors, the most common type of reactors. “Nuclear – SMR” refers to nuclear small modular reactor. “Advanced coal with carbon capture” refers to ultra-supercritical coal (a combustion technology using higher pressure and temperature to achieve higher efficiency) with 30% carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). “Gas with carbon capture” refers to combined-cycle gas with 95% CCS. Costs were estimated based on information about similar facilities recently built or under development in the U.S. and abroad.

Nuclear fusion, a process where two light atomic nuclei combine to form a single heavier one while releasing a massive amount of energy, is another nascent nuclear power technology. It is different from nuclear fission, where the nucleus of an atom splits and releases energy, which is used to generate electricity in today’s nuclear power plants. Fusion is even further away from commercialisation than SMR, but commercial interest is emerging, as evidenced by Google’s recent agreement to purchase power from a planned fusion plant in the 2030s.

3. We expect sustained policy support to provide a structural tailwind

In addition to high costs and long lead time, worries about nuclear safety are also a key reason behind some countries’ anti-nuclear stance or decisions to exit nuclear. In a sign of broadening interest in nuclear energy, some of these countries appear to be reconsidering – or at least discussing – these policies.

For example, Germany has closed all its nuclear power plants after deciding to exit nuclear in 2011, but has recently dropped its opposition to nuclear power. Denmark is considering lifting a 40-year nuclear ban, and Spain’s major blackout in April has rekindled a debate over the country’s plan to exit nuclear energy. Meanwhile, countries such as Egypt and Bangladesh are developing their first nuclear power plants. Others with established nuclear fleets are expanding capacity, often with SMRs included in the plan.

For countries to successfully introduce or expand their nuclear power capacity, policies that help tackle high costs and long lead time will be key. The IEA observed that standardising reactors’ designs and developing a strong supply chain and skilled workforces have helped China’s recent success in rapidly expanding its nuclear fleet and achieving an average of five years in completing projects. Today, among the 62 reactors under construction, 29 are in China, which is expected to overtake the U.S. as the world’s top nuclear power producer by 2030.

Although policy support in developed countries is unlikely to match China’s strong state involvement in nuclear development, a lot can still be achieved. Long-term energy and industrial policies can encourage standardisation of reactor designs and nurture a strong supply chain, government support in the form of loan guarantees or risk-sharing mechanisms could also help mitigate risks and attract financing.

In the shorter term, extending the life of existing reactors where feasible remains the most economical way to maintain a stable nuclear fleet that contributes to a secure and affordable supply of electricity, according to the IEA.

Lifetime extensions are not, however, without controversies. There are concerns about deteriorating reliability of components, impact from climate change, and that an emphasis on nuclear energy could sideline development of renewables. Nevertheless, 13 countries have decided to extend lifetimes of a total of 64 reactors, which account for about 15% of current global nuclear fleet capacity.

Prolong and proliferate

Figure 3: Nuclear energy capacity set to grow worldwide

Number of countries pursuing strategies to support nuclear energy


Source: International Energy Agency (IEA). The Path to a New Era for Nuclear Energy. January 2025. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Power Reactor Information System. The map shows current nuclear energy capacity in each region, based on data from the IAEA. The table shows the number of countries planning or considering any of the three strategies related to nuclear power in each region, based on policy decision summaries from the IEA report.

4. Traditional nuclear power’s value chain is offering some compelling opportunities

Some U.S. nuclear power producers have been primary beneficiaries of a wave of power purchase deals with major technology companies. Opportunities to capture the growing interest in nuclear. energy can be found up and down the value chain, including uranium miners, component manufacturers, specialty engineering and service providers.

Take uranium mining. Expansion of nuclear power capacity will require more uranium, just as a uranium shortage looms large after a decade-long bear market. “I believe this uranium bull market has more room to run, as primary supply is fragile and having difficulty ramping up, secondary supply is dwindling, and demand is increasing,” says equity investment analyst Aditya Bapna. “Given the complexity and long lead time of developing uranium mines, uranium miners that are low-cost, have strong balance sheets and are located in geographies with lower geopolitical risks are potentially more attractive, in my view.”

Industrial companies with growing exposure to nuclear energy may be worthy of investors’ attention too. A large U.S. machinery manufacturer recently purchased a producer of sensors for aerospace and nuclear industries. “The market will love the added aerospace and nuclear exposure, as they are probably the two best end markets one could have in industrials over the next decade,” says equity investment analyst Nate Burggraf.

Figure 4: For investors considering nuclear energy, generation is not the whole story

This illustration shows key links on the nuclear power value chain.

The bottom line

Global nuclear power output is expected to hit an all-time high in 2025, and more than 40 countries now have plans to expand nuclear power use. Even in countries that have historically avoided nuclear, such as Australia, the debate over its role in the energy mix has been reignited.

Nuclear power has experienced boom-and-bust cycles before, but this time may be different, as it is marked by increasing investment interest from the private sector, especially in new technologies such as SMRs.

Investors could find opportunities along the value chain, including mining companies, utilities and specialised engineering and services companies. They should also keep tabs on development elsewhere in the electricity system. Power grids need to accommodate rising electricity demand and growing supply from renewables and other sources. Grid modernisation and expansion are, in our view, a related growth area that investors should also keep a close eye on.

 

Jayme Colosimo is an investment director for Capital Strategy Research and ESG, Donovan Escalante is an ESG senior manager, and Belinda Ga is an ESG investment director at Capital Group, a sponsor of Firstlinks. This article contains general information only and does not consider the circumstances of any investor. Please seek financial advice before acting on any investment as market circumstances can change.

For more articles and papers from Capital Group, click here.

 

13 Comments
Martin
September 06, 2025

The quote below is from an article published on solarquotes.com.au this week, a site dedicated to providing resources to help people understand household solar :
"In 2024, the world installed over 7 GW of new nuclear power capacity, which was a huge uptick of 33% compared to 2023. This brought the total global installed nuclear capacity to around 420 GW as of early 2025.

China alone added new solar PV capacity at roughly:
216GW in 2023
277GW in 2024
212GW for the first half of 2025 alone; most projections for the full-year 2025 expect a total of 300 GW to be added, even with a second-half slowdown.
It took 60 years for the world to install it’s first Tearrawatt of solar and less than two years to install the second Terrawatt"

It seems clear where the new money is going .

Dudley
September 07, 2025

Nuclear is continuous (24h / d); solar is intermittent, diurnal and seasonal (~4h / d).

Nuclear nameplate capacity = 1GW = 1,000,000,000 * 24 * 365 = 8,760,000,000,000Wh = 8.76TWh.

Solar nameplate capacity = 1GW = 1,000,000,000 * 4 * 365 = 1.460,000,000,000Wh = 1.46TWh.

Solar needs 24 / 4 = 6 times as much installed nameplate capacity to produce the same amount of energy as nuclear; then, to deliver that energy 24 h / d, requires additional means to store the energy and release it at the rate of power demanded.

Dudley
September 09, 2025

How much would a 1,000 MW nuclear power plant cost in AUD?
'A 1,000 MW nuclear power plant in Australia could cost at least AUD $8.5 billion, according to the CSIRO's GenCost report. However, this figure assumes a continuous building program; the first "first-of-a-kind" reactor could incur a significant "premium," potentially doubling the cost to around AUD $17 billion.'

How much would a 1,000 MW PV power plant with battery storage cost in AUD?
'A 1,000 MW solar power plant with battery storage in Australia would likely cost between $1.1 billion and
$1.75 billion AUD'
Assuming alternatives like gas or nuclear available to avoid many times more nameplate capacity to handle multiple sunless days:
From $1.1G * 6 to $1.75G * 6 = $6.6G to $10.5G

Nuclear / PV solar: similar capital cost and best when deployed complimentarily.

Jeff O
September 10, 2025

Take a look at Fig 2 ….batteries are the key

DougC
September 06, 2025

Zero-sum Energy equation
I was peripherally involved with the Berkeley Nuclear Power Station project in the UK in the 1960’s. A senior engineer with the Nuclear Power Group (developing nuclear power stations in the UK) said that the total amount of energy consumed in the production of materials and the construction of the power station was equal to the amount of energy that the nuclear power station would generate in its intended 25 years of operation (before more energy would have to be expended to refurbish and update the station). That is, a nuclear power station produces enough energy for the construction and operation of a nuclear power station.
That is, there is no net gain from nuclear (fission) power in terms of energy balance and the only justification is not an energy proposition but the greater damage to health and the environment resulting from use of alternative fuels (coal and oil) – ignoring, of course, the possibility of nuclear accident, following which there would be eons of radiated and uninhabitable land.
Nuclear Fusion
I recall the (short-lived) excitement about the ‘breakthrough’ research in nuclear fusion (the Zeta project ?) and its promise for abundant energy – in the early 1960’s. I’m glad I didn’t hold my breath.
Missing Cost
One cost not shown in the Figure 4 Nuclear Value Chain diagram in the informative article is the cost of eventual decommissioning of nuclear power stations. A now-outdated ‘estimate’ of cost to decommission the several obsolete nuclear power stations in the UK is about $250B.

john
September 05, 2025

IMHO. One of the coalition mistakes was to nominate 7 sites for nuclear power stations. For example the NIMBY issue. Also it is much more economical and technically sound to build one at a single site that is the most efficient location from the grid's perspective. Once it is in operation; technologies, cost improvements and experiential issues; can be taken advantage of.

john
September 05, 2025

I was under the impression that most wind and solar components were recyclable. Am I wrong in that ?

Johns
September 04, 2025

You cannot accurately determine the cost of nuclear power because of the unknown cost of disposal of the waste.

The USA has not disposed of one gram of nuclear waste. All the USA have done is stored the waste.

So, until you can come up with a dollar amount for the disposal of the waste, the cost of nuclear power is unknown. Unknown equals uncertainty

There are certain nuclear waste that cannot be avoided (eg for xrays, and possibly nuclear subs) but the fact that these unavoidable waste exists, doesn't mean we should just make more of it, when there are other alternatives (including solar, wind and coal)

Lester
September 04, 2025

Johns comments are fair, but he may want to consider applying the same argument to the solar and wind technologies and see where the road ends.

Bill
September 04, 2025

Are there anything inherently.life treating in the waste of solar and wind that means you cant just burn the waste in the ground and forget about it?

john
September 05, 2025

You cannot compare that sort of waste to nuclear waste

SJ
September 04, 2025

The uncertain cost of waste disposal isn't a compelling counter argument.

We've done very little to dispose of the waste from all the coal, gas and oil plants over the years either.

Perhaps some minor carbon capture at times but the rest of it has just been vented to the atmosphere the world to become everyone's problem - it hasn't been disposed of, just stored.

And it's much harder to quantify the cost to people from the health impact of that, not to mention the costs associated with global warning if one is inclined to believe in that.

michael
September 09, 2025

of course it is a compelling argument. Next you will be arguing that 2 wrongs make a right.
If a lesson is to be learned from fossil fuels, it is that pollution & waste must be taken into account up front, not left for the grandchildren.

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Four ways to capitalise on a forgotten investing megatrend

Australia is out of step on nuclear power

Aggressive climate targets spell opportunity for investors

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Which generation had it toughest?

Each generation believes its economic challenges were uniquely tough - but what does the data say? A closer look reveals a more nuanced, complex story behind the generational hardship debate. 

Maybe it’s time to consider taxing the family home

Australia could unlock smarter investment and greater equity by reforming housing tax concessions. Rethinking exemptions on the family home could benefit most Australians, especially renters and owners of modest homes.

The best way to get rich and retire early

This goes through the different options including shares, property and business ownership and declares a winner, as well as outlining the mindset needed to earn enough to never have to work again.

A perfect storm for housing affordability in Australia

Everyone has a theory as to why housing in Australia is so expensive. There are a lot of different factors at play, from skewed migration patterns to banking trends and housing's status as a national obsession.

Supercharging the ‘4% rule’ to ensure a richer retirement

The creator of the 4% rule for retirement withdrawals, Bill Bengen, has written a new book outlining fresh strategies to outlive your money, including holding fewer stocks in early retirement before increasing allocations.

Simple maths says the AI investment boom ends badly

This AI cycle feels less like a revolution and more like a rerun. Just like fibre in 2000, shale in 2014, and cannabis in 2019, the technology or product is real but the capital cycle will be brutal. Investors beware.

Latest Updates

Weekly Editorial

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 628 with weekend update

Australian investors have been pouring money into US stocks this year, just as they start to underperform the rest of the world. Is this a sign of things to come? This looks at 50 years of data to see what happens next.

  • 11 September 2025
Exchange traded products

Are LICs licked?

LICs are continuing to struggle with large discounts and frustrated investors are wondering whether it’s worth holding onto them. This explains why the next 6-12 months will be make or break for many LICs.

Retirement

We need a better scheme to help superannuation victims

The Compensation Scheme of Last Resort fails families hit by First Guardian and Shield losses, as well as advisers who are being wrongly blamed for the saga. It’s time for a fair, faster, universal super levy solution.

Investment strategies

5 charts every retiree must see…

Retirement can be daunting for Australians facing financial uncertainty. Understand your goals, longevity challenges, inflation impacts, market risks, and components of retirement income with these crucial charts.

Economy

How bread vs rice moulded history

Does a country's staple crop decide elements of its destiny? The second order effects of being a wheat or rice growing country could explain big differences in culture, societal norms and economic development.

Investment strategies

Small caps are catching fire - for good reason

Small caps just crashed the party like John McClane did in the movie, Die Hard - August delivered explosive gains. With valuations at historic lows, long-term investors could be set for a sequel worth watching.

Defensive growth for an age of deglobalisation, debt and disorder

Today’s new world order appears likely to lead to a lower return, higher risk investment environment. But this asset class looks especially well placed to survive, thrive, and deliver attractive returns to investors.

Economy

Will we choose a four-day working week?

The allure of a four-day week reflects a yearning for more balance in our lives. Yet the reliability of studies touting a lift in productivity is questionable and society may not be ready for such a shift anyway.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.