Proponents of nuclear energy have promised a “nuclear renaissance”—a resurgence of nuclear reactors that would provide clean energy for the future—for years but as a society, we have yet to see this occur.
As former acting Assistant United States Secretary of Energy, Joe Romm, Ph.D., outlines in his series of blog posts, the vision that these proponents of nuclear energy have promised may be more of an illusion than reality. Yes, nuclear power plants can reduce carbon emissions. But no, they may not be the panacea that we have been hoping for.
Why It Matters
Too Slow, Too Expensive? Often, new plants have significant cost overruns, elongated construction timelines, and the possibility of technical failure. With these disadvantages, the nuclear renaissance is an impractical solution to the climate crisis.
False Promise of New Tech? China, which has taken the lead in building the most nuclear plants, has not yet made these plants economically viable.
Not Nimble Enough? Other renewable energy sources like wind and solar have scaled up, delivering sustainable energy at a fraction of the cost and time.
Details
Throughout his series of blog posts, Joe Romm, Ph.D. states how the nuclear renaissance may be failing and why we might be served focusing more on renewables, as nuclear appears to be too slow and expensive to build while investing resources into potentially new technology that supplements nuclear energy diverts resources from investment into proven sources of sustainable energy.
Too Slow, Too Expensive?
The most basic issue for nuclear feasibility is its cost.
It is simply too costly when comparing raw power to renewables.
As Romm quotes Bent Flyvbjerg, Professor Emeritus at Oxford University, in his second post:
“We simply cannot afford the wait and the waste they entail in our present predicament.”
As Responsible Alpha has discussed, climate disasters are increasing. Climate models have not only underestimated the speed of climate change, but they have also underestimated the severity of the risks that they pose.
Globally countries are facing fires, biodiversity loss, food system shocks, monsoons, and more.
Building a nuclear power plant often takes 10 to 12 years. As portrayed in the chart below, Nature Energy indicates that nuclear energy projects result in a vastly larger timeframe of construction compared to solar, thermal, and wind projects.
Nuclear projects often result also in costs overruns.
The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) states that:
“Energy projects often experience cost overruns of more than 100%, but with wide variances: oil and gas projects can experience up to 120% in cost overruns, while new nuclear power projects might witness up to a staggering 400% in overruns. Conversely, renewable energy projects tend to be on the more favorable end of the spectrum—average cost overruns for wind and solar projects are 54% and 30%” (BCG).
Romm mentions that the only other projects with larger cost overruns are the Olympics and nuclear storage. The expensive nature of nuclear projects means fewer of them can be built.
False Promise of New Tech?
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), advanced nuclear reactors with enhanced safety features that offer modular scalability allowing multiple units to be joined together, are often stated that they will solve the problems that nuclear energy development presents.
But to date, SMRs are still too expensive, too slow, and as the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) mentioned in a 2024 report:
“too risky to play a significant role in transitioning from fossil fuels in the coming 10-15 years.”
As of 2025, no commercial SMRs exist in the US or Europe. China has aggressively funded nuclear development, but their first SMR is costing twice as much per kilowatt as a traditional reactor.
Also, the cheap and quick nature of building an SMR comes with tradeoffs as they can only produce up to 300 MW(e) while traditional reactors can produce 700+ MW(e).
The energy and resources that go into developing and building SMRs could be better spent on proven sources of renewable energy. Wind, solar, and battery storage are already providing low-carbon power across the world. IEEFA highlights that SMRs:
“will take resources away from carbon-free and lower-cost renewable technologies that are available today and can push the transition from fossil fuels forward significantly in the coming 10 years.”
While the costs for SMRs keep rising, capital should instead be focused on proven technologies – wind, solar, and battery sources.
Not Nimble Enough?
Nuclear advocates continue to push for SMRs as the future of clean energy, but empirical, real-world data tells a different story. Romm states:
“Long before SMRs become commercial, there will be many superior low-carbon alternatives, including advanced geothermal.”
While solar farms already exist across the world, and they can be deployed quickly in a few years, nuclear plants also require a vast grid integration, which adds time and cost. Romm says the:
“best option might be 82% solar with gas that can be tweaked up to 90%”
which solves the core problem of connecting to the grid.
If you are interested in Romm’s work, please note his forthcoming book, “The Hype About Hydrogen: False Promises and Real Solutions in the Race to Save the Climate,” which has a full chapter on SMRs.
Questions Analysts Should Ask
As the transition to a sustainable world accelerates, analysts must evaluate the feasibility of nuclear power and its potential technological advances compared to proven renewable sources of energy.
Given that nuclear projects have often exceeded cost expectations by 400%, why should capital continue to pay for SMRs and other nuclear plants?
With nuclear projects taking 10 to 12 years to complete while solar and wind projects can be deployed within 2 to 3 years, how can we continue to fund these nuclear projects when global warming is already driving financial and economic risks?
What are the opportunity costs of prioritizing nuclear development over renewables and how could prioritizing nuclear development delay a global transition to decarbonization?
Nuclear renaissance is compelling at first, but as we look at the data, it is clear that the renaissance is an illusion rather than a reality.
Traditional nuclear power plants and SMRs cannot compete with renewables whether it is on scalability, speed, or cost. Rather than continuing to invest in an industry that has failed to deliver, businesses, governments, investors, and citizens must prioritize proven energy solutions, especially as the impacts of climate change continue to ramp up.
Comentarios