🧠 From Neglect to Necessity: Why ☢️ Nuclear Power Is Making a Global Comeback

After a decade of underinvestment, ☢️nuclear energy is re-emerging as a vital pillar of decarbonization. Here’s why the world—Germany to Japan, China to the US—is rethinking the atom.

Are We Investing Too Little in Nuclear Energy Compared to Renewables? A Comparative Analysis of the Global Energy Investment Landscape (2010–2023)

Abstract

The global transition to low-carbon energy systems has driven unprecedented investment in clean energy, with renewables like solar and wind dominating capital flows. Between 2010 and 2023, over $4.2 trillion was invested in solar and wind, while nuclear energy received just $370 billion—less than 9% of clean energy investment (IEA, 2024). Despite nuclear’s high capacity factors, low lifecycle emissions, and unmatched CO₂ displacement potential , its investment share remains disproportionately small. This paper examines the global energy investment landscape, nuclear’s unique value proposition, the rise of small modular reactors (SMRs), and the implications of underinvestment in nuclear for grid stability and climate goals. Drawing on data from the IEA, World Nuclear Association, and other sources, it argues for a balanced energy portfolio that prioritizes nuclear alongside renewables to ensure energy security, reliability, and deep decarbonization.

1. Introduction

The global energy sector is at a crossroads, with rising electricity demand driven by electrification, data centers, artificial intelligence (AI), and industrial growth. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects electricity demand to grow six times faster than total energy demand by 2050, necessitating a rapid scale-up of low-carbon technologies (IEA, 2025). Renewables, particularly solar and wind, have dominated clean energy investment, fueledby falling costs, policy support, and rapid deployment. However, nuclear energy—a proven, dispatchable, low-carbon technology—has been sidelined, receiving a fraction of the investment allocated to renewables.

This paper investigates whether the world is investing too little in nuclear energy compared to renewables, analyzing investment trends from 2010 to 2023, nuclear’s technical and environmental advantages, and the role of emerging technologies like SMRs. It addresses key questions:

• How does nuclear’s investment compare to renewables, and what drives the disparity?

• What are nuclear’s unique contributions to grid stability, CO₂ displacement, and energy security?

• Can SMRs bridge the investment gap, and what are their lifecycle emissions and scalability?

• What are the policy and market barriers to nuclear investment, and how can they be addressed?

2. Global Energy Investment Landscape (2010–2023)

2.1 Investment Trends

The IEA’s World Energy Investment Report 2024 provides a comprehensive overview of global energy investment trends. Between 2010 and 2023, clean energy technologies (renewables, nuclear, grids, storage, and efficiency) attracted significant capital, with renewables leading the charge. The breakdown of clean energy investment is as follows:

• Solar + Wind: $4.2 trillion, driven by declining costs (solar LCOE dropped to $30–60/MWh) and massive deployment (585 GW of solar and 140 GW of wind added in 2024 alone).

• Nuclear: $370 billion, primarily for new reactors, lifetime extensions, and refurbishments. Investment rose from $45 billion annually in 2010 to $65 billion in 2023.

• Grids + Storage: $1.2 trillion, supporting renewable integration.

• Other (Efficiency): $0.23 trillion, focusing on energy-saving technologies. Source: IEA World Energy Investment Report 2024

China accounted for nearly one-third of global clean energy investment, with the U.S. and Europe also significant contributors (IEA, 2024). Nuclear’s share, at ~6% of clean energy spending, reflects its limited role compared to renewables’ ~70%.

2.2 Regional Breakdown

• China: Leads nuclear investment with $440 billion planned for 150+ reactors by 2035. In 2024, China approved 11 reactors ($31 billion) and started construction on five (IEA, 2025; Morningstar, 2024).

• Europe: Mixed trends—France plans six new reactors by 2035, the UK targets 24 GW by 2050, but Germany phased out nuclear in 2023. Nuclear investment in Europe was ~$80 billion from 2010–2023.

• United States: Invested ~$100 billion, including $6 billion for SMRs via the Civil Nuclear Credit Program. NuScale’s Utah project is a flagship initiative (DOE, 2023).

• Russia: Rosatom is constructing 23 reactors globally, with $50 billion in export contracts (IEA, 2025).

• Emerging Economies: India, Egypt, and Turkey are expanding nuclear capacity, with investments of ~$40 billion.

2.3 Why the Disparity?

The investment gap between nuclear and renewables stems from several factors:

• Cost and Timeline: Nuclear projects have high upfront costs ($6–12 billion per GW) and long construction timelines (5–10 years), compared to solar/wind (1–2 years) (X post, 2025).

• Policy and Subsidies: Renewables benefit from generous subsidies and shorter ROI, while nuclear faces stringent regulations and public opposition post-Fukushima (IEA, 2022).

• Public Perception: Nuclear accidents (e.g., Chernobyl, Fukushima) have fueled safety concerns, despite nuclear’s low death rate (0.052 deaths/TWh vs. 33 for coal) (ScienceDirect, 2024).

• Market Dynamics: Solar and wind’s modularity and scalability align with private sector preferences for low-risk, quick-return projects.

3. Nuclear’s Unique Value Proposition

3.1 Capacity Factors

Nuclear power plants operate at capacity factors exceeding 90%, meaning they generate electricity at near-maximum output for most of the year. In 2023, the global nuclear fleet achieved an average capacity factor of 81.5%, up from 80.5% in 2022 (World Nuclear Association, 2024). Other energy sources’ capacity factors in 2023 were:

• Nuclear: 81.5%

• Coal: 55%

• Gas: 45%

• Wind: 35%

• Solar: 25%

Source: World Nuclear Association, 2024; IEA, 2023

High capacity factors make nuclear ideal for baseload power, ensuring grid stability as variable renewables scale.

3.2 Lifecycle Emissions

Nuclear energy has among the lowest lifecycle emissions, accounting for mining, construction, operation, and decommissioning. Lifecycle emissions for various energy sources are:

• Nuclear: 12 gCO₂/kWh

• Wind: 11 gCO₂/kWh

• Solar PV: 48 gCO₂/kWh

• Gas: 490 gCO₂/kWh

• Coal: 820 gCO₂/kWh Source: IEA, 2022; Carbon Credits, 2025

Nuclear’s low emissions are comparable to wind and significantly better than solar, which requires energy-intensive manufacturing for panels.

3.3 CO₂ Displacement Potential

Nuclear’s high capacity factors and low emissions translate to significant CO₂ displacement. Since 1971, nuclear energy has avoided 72 Gt of CO₂ emissions globally, equivalent to two years of global energy-related emissions (IEA, 2025). In 2023 alone, nuclear avoided 2.1 Gt of CO₂, more than the annual emissions of most countries except China, the U.S., and India (World Nuclear Association, 2024). Per GW installed, nuclear displaces ~7–8 MtCO₂ annually, compared to ~1–2 MtCO₂ for solar and ~2–3 MtCO₂ for wind, due to its consistent output (IEA, 2022).

3.4 Grid Stability

Nuclear provides dispatchable, 24/7 power, complementing intermittent renewables. As solar and wind penetration increases, grid instability risks rise, as seen in:

• California (2020): Rolling blackouts due to insufficient baseload power during solar downtime.

• UK (2021): Wind lulls forced reliance on gas, spiking emissions.

• Iberia (2023): Droughts reduced hydropower, exposing over-reliance on variable sources.

Nuclear’s ability to stabilize grids is critical for decarbonizing heavy industries (e.g., steel, cement) and supporting data centers, which require constant power (IEA, 2025).

4. The Rise of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

4.1 What Are SMRs?

SMRs are advanced nuclear reactors with capacities below 300 MW, designed for modularity, factory construction, and rapid deployment. Unlike traditional gigawatt-scale reactors, SMRs offer:

• Lower Costs: $1–3 billion per unit vs. $6–12 billion for large reactors.

• Shorter Timelines: 3–5 years vs. 5–10 years.

• Flexibility: Suitable for remote areas, industrial sites, and data centers (DOE, 2023).

Close to 80 SMR designs are under development globally, with key players including NuScale(U.S.), GE Hitachi, Rolls-Royce (UK), and Rosatom (Russia) (IEA, 2025).

4.2 Investment in SMRs

SMRs are attracting significant interest:

• United States: $6 billion via the Civil Nuclear Credit Program; NuScale’s Utah project targets 2029 operation.

• Canada: 30% investment tax credit for SMRs; Ontario plans a 300 MW SMR by 2028.

• UK: £1.5 billion for SMR development, aiming for 24 GW by 2050.

• South Africa: $480 million for the HTMR-100 SMR project (Nuclear Business Platform, 2025).

The IEA projects SMRs could account for 25 GW of capacity by 2035, with investment rising from $5 billion in 2023 to $20 billion by 2030 (IEA, 2025).

4.3 Lifecycle Emissions of SMRs

SMRs maintain nuclear’s low lifecycle emissions (~12 gCO₂/kWh), with potential reductions due to standardized manufacturing and reduced material use. Their smaller footprint minimizes land use compared to solar (20–50 acres/MW) and wind (100–200 acres/MW) (Carbon Credits, 2025).

4.4 Challenges for SMRs

• Cost Uncertainty: Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) estimated at $85/MWh, 41% higher than large reactors (ScienceDirect, 2024).

• Regulatory Hurdles: Licensing processes are complex, though the U.S. NRC is streamlining SMR approvals.

• Supply Chains: Uranium enrichment is concentrated (Russia: 40% of global capacity), posing risks (IEA, 2025).

• Public Perception: Safety concerns persist, though SMRs incorporate passive safety systems.

5. Global Nuclear Renaissance: Recent Developments

5.1 Policy Shifts

• Germany: Reconsidering nuclear phase-out; SMRs gaining traction in policy debates (New Civil Engineer, 2025).

• Japan: Restarted 12 reactors post-Fukushima; plans 7 more by 2030 (Morningstar, 2024).

• China: Approved 11 reactors in 2024 ($31 billion); aims for 150+ by 2035 (IEA, 2025).

• United States: $6 billion for SMRs; lifetime extensions for 60+ reactors (IEA, 2025).

• UK: Committed to 24 GW by 2050, including Hinkley Point C ($30 billion) and Sizewell C (IEA, 2025).

• Russia: Rosatom’s 23 reactors under construction in 12 countries (IEA, 2025).

5.2 Nuclear’s Role in Net-Zero

The IEA’s Net Zero Emissions (NZE) scenario projects nuclear capacity doubling to 916 GW by 2050, requiring $150 billion annually by 2030 (IEA, 2025). Projected nuclear capacity under different scenarios includes:

• Current Policies (STEPS): 417 GW (2023), 500 GW (2030), 650 GW (2050)

• Announced Pledges (APS): 417 GW (2023), 600 GW (2030), 850 GW (2050)

• Net Zero Emissions (NZE): 417 GW (2023), 700 GW (2030), 916 GW (2050) Source: IEA, 2025

The World Nuclear Association estimates nuclear could reach 800 GW, avoiding 15 GtCO₂ by 2050 (NEA, 2022).

5.3 Data Center Demand

The rise of AI and data centers is driving nuclear interest. SMRs are ideal for their 24/7, high-power needs. Tech companies like Microsoft and Google are exploring nuclear partnerships, with SMRs projected to power 10–20% of U.S. data centers by 2035 (Carbon Credits, 2025).

6. Barriers to Nuclear Investment

6.1 Economic Challenges

• High Capital Costs: $7,031/kW for SMRs vs. $4,500/kW for large reactors (ScienceDirect, 2024).

• Long ROI: Nuclear projects take 12–23 years from planning to operation, compared to 1–2 years for renewables (X post, 2024).

• Competition: Solar’s LCOE ($30–60/MWh) undercuts nuclear’s $60–90/MWh (X post, 2025).

6.2 Regulatory and Social Barriers

• Post-Fukushima Regulations: Stricter safety standards increased costs and delays.

• Public Opposition: Misconceptions about safety and waste persist, despite nuclear’sstrong safety record.

• Geopolitical Risks: Uranium supply concentration (Kazakhstan: 43%, Russia: 40% enrichment) poses energy security concerns (IEA, 2025).

6.3 Supply Chain Constraints

• Workforce: Aging nuclear workforce and skill shortages in advanced economies.

• Materials: Limited production of high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) for SMRs.

7. The Case for Balanced Investment

7.1 Climate Urgency

The IPCC and IEA emphasize that all low-carbon technologies are needed to limit warming to 1.5°C. Nuclear’s ability to displace 2.1 GtCO₂ annually and provide baseload power is critical for deep decarbonization, especially in hard-to-abate sectors like industry and hydrogen production.

7.2 Grid Reliability

Over-reliance on renewables without sufficient baseload power increases blackout risks, as seen in California, the UK, and Iberia. Nuclear’sdispatchable nature ensures grid stability, enabling higher renewable penetration.

7.3 Energy Security

Nuclear reduces reliance on imported fossil fuels, enhancing energy sovereignty. Countries like France (70% nuclear electricity) and Sweden (33% nuclear) have decarbonized their grids using nuclear-hydro-renewable mixes (IAEA, 2025).

7.4 Economic and Social Benefits

Nuclear projects create high-skilled jobs and long-term economic growth. A single reactor supports ~10,000 jobs during construction and ~1,000 during operation (World Nuclear Association, 2024).

8. Policy Recommendations

1. Increase Public Funding: Governments should match renewable subsidies with nuclear incentives, targeting $120–150 billion annually by 2030 (IEA, 2025).

2. Streamline Regulations: Harmonize SMR licensing globally to reduce costs and timelines.

3. Diversify Supply Chains: Invest in domestic uranium enrichment and HALEU production to reduce reliance on Russia and Kazakhstan.

4. Public Engagement: Launch campaigns to address safety misconceptions, highlighting nuclear’s low death rate and CO₂ benefits.

5. Support SMR Deployment: Fund first-of-a-kind SMR projects to prove commercial viability, targeting 25 GW by 2035.

9. Conclusion

The global energy investment landscape from 2010 to 2023 reveals a stark imbalance: $4.2 trillion in solar and wind dwarfs $370 billion in nuclear, despite nuclear’s superior capacity factors, low lifecycle emissions, and CO₂ displacement potential. SMRs offer a promising path to bridge this gap, with lower costs and faster deployment, but face economic, regulatory, and supply chain challenges. Recent global developments—China’s aggressive expansion, Japan’s reactor restarts, and U.S./UK SMR investments—signal a nuclear renaissance, yet investment remains insufficient to meet net-zero goals.

A diversified energy portfolio, balancing renewables and nuclear, is essential for climate urgency, grid reliability, and energy security. Underinvesting in nuclear risks grid vulnerabilities, higher emissions, and missed opportunities for deep decarbonization. Policymakers, investors, and industry must prioritize nuclear alongside renewables to build a resilient, low-carbon future.

• Nuclear Energy, Clean Tech, Global Energy Policy, Investment Trends, Climate Change.

References

• International Energy Agency (IEA). (2024). World Energy Investment Report 2024.

• IEA. (2025). The Path to a New Era for Nuclear Energy.

• IEA. (2022). Nuclear Power and Secure Energy Transitions.

• World Nuclear Association. (2024). World Nuclear Performance Report 2024.

• Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). (2022). TheNEA Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Strategy.

• International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2025). Nuclear Energy in the Clean Energy Transition.

• Carbon Credits. (2025). The Ultimate Guide to Small Modular Reactors.

• ScienceDirect. (2024). Economic Potential and Barriers of Small Modular Reactors in Europe.

• U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2023). Advanced Small Modular Reactors.

• New Civil Engineer. (2025). Global Nuclear Set for Record Growth in 2025.

• Nuclear Business Platform. (2025). 10 Major Nuclear Energy Developments to Watch in 2025.

• Morningstar. (2024). Best Stocks and Funds to Invest in Nuclear Energy.

• X Posts. (2024–2025). Various posts on nuclear vs. renewable costs and performance.

If this topic resonated with you…

👉 Subscribe to Crude to Clear for weekly perspectives on energy, investment, and transition realism.

📩 Share this post with your network if you found it valuable.

💬 Comments welcome—let’s discuss!