Nuclear energy: Everyone supports her, but nobody wants to invest.

Its revival internationally has gained ground in recent years at the level of slogans, but not yet at real ones that are now slightly higher than the historical lows of the previous decade. There are a number of obstacles, but also misunderstandings in this particular technology that are not easy to overcome. First of all, the construction of a nuclear power plant is an investment of tens of billions to be paid “on the morning” and then gradually repaid within 20 or 30 years of operation. A private company cannot easily raise these funds in the current environment without public “plates”, so most new units are implemented by state players, especially Asia. Indicative is the US investor statement in previous days on Twitter: “I was at a meeting on investments in nuclear energy. Everyone expressed their support, but nobody was willing to put their money first.” Besides, it does not help that even the few stations implemented in recent years have often faced over-costing and long-term delays that translate into significant investment risk. There is also the wrong sense in public opinion that the energy produced by nuclear plants is cheap. However, this is only true because most stations operating in Europe and the US are old and have long paid back their high capital costs. Fetin studies of international households determine the cost of the produced megawatt-hours of the new nuclear at levels well above RES or even natural gas plants. This should tell us a lot about the competitiveness of this technology at this stage. At the same time, there is a warning difference between the past and the present nuclear energy: In the golden age of the last century, investments were made more on terms corresponding to large infrastructure (networks, national roads, etc.). In other words, they had a strong state mark, enjoyed tolerance and security in terms of requirements. Today the corresponding investments are called upon to be made in a much more competitive environment. Then there are other issues, such as that in countries like the United States the know-how and broad technical basis that existed once have been significantly eroded. The “hole” left behind by the lost 2010s (see Fukushima) was large and is not easily replenished. For example, American companies in the industry have been unable for many consecutive years to find new engineers interested in dealing with the object to replace the old generation. Finally, the licensing process is nowadays much more demanding and complex than in the past, affecting calculations in turn. The above concerns large nuclear units, as we have known for years. A possible solution is small articulated reactors (SMRs) that receive thrust from the deep pockets of computer giants. But this is an untested technology that takes time and money to mature. In conclusion, a revival of nuclear energy in market terms conflicts with the progress made by other power-generating technologies, as well as the uncertainties of the current environment. On the other hand, many states do not have the financial means they once had to take the risk and guarantee investment. In order to move forward again nuclear energy will need stable and multi-annual political support. An effort going through successive governments, at a time when the continuity of political choices is scarce. That’s why the basket remains small for now.