DAVID HESS | OPINION
While the USA may not lead the world in nuclear industrial capability anymore, it clearly leads the world in nuclear ideas – and ambition.
If large-scale transformation of the global nuclear sector is to begin to occur in the coming two decades, then chances are good it will be led and championed by the ‘land of the free.
architects of change, and it is quite obvious that their ambitions are not confined within the country. What may initially be intended for domestic deployment is projected to go global and fundamentally transform the face of the nuclear industry. Put another way, while the USA may not lead the world
in nuclear industrial capability anymore, it clearly leads the world in nuclear ideas – and ambition. If large-scale transformation of the global nuclear sector is to begin to occur in the coming two decades, then chances are good it will be led and championed by the ‘land of the free’. Of course, innovative nuclear ideas and start-up
technology developers exist outside the USA, some very good ones in fact. But there are simply fewer of them. The USA has something other countries seem to lack – an ecosystem of universities nurturing private R&D hubs, consistent Department of Energy (DOE) support, and an apparent investor appetite to fund start-up companies – even when they are at a very early stage with little more than some pictures on a blackboard. Whether this all-in commitment to technology revolution is
inspired political leadership or in fact a lack of it is a polarising question. The USA does seem to have gambled its nuclear future on technologies that have yet to be demonstrated at industrial scale. Most – if not all – of its eggs are in this basket, with the pathway from research and development to large- scale deployment remaining murky at best. On the other hand, if the market-led, innovation-based
approach works then the country will find itself in the driver’s seat for the next round of global nuclear expansion. An interested international customer base has already been cultivated by US state officials, and by the media that is fixated on the advanced nuclear sector’s progress. The fact that the digital technology giants like Google and Meta seem increasingly willing to be backers just heightens expectations that these technologies will be commercialised and end up being successful. As for other sectors, the USA can proudly point to
innovation in oil and gas which saw hydraulic fracture rise to dominance, ushering in a period of astonishingly cheap power prices. Looking further afield, companies such as SpaceX are held up as the posterchild of what is possible when you allow disruptors to enter a slow and regulated sector. Is the country right to believe that the same is possible, and overdue, for nuclear?
It doesn’t stop with nuclear reactors. On 28 January, in
response to one of President Trump’s many decrees, the DOE issued a request for information inviting US states to express interest in hosting Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses and make clear what their requirements for hosting would be. These campuses are encouraged to host as many different fuel cycle facilities as possible, including conversion, enrichment, fabrication, reprocessing and, crucially, disposal. This bold proposal seems intent on solving two problems.
Firstly, it should drive the onshoring of ‘advanced’ front-end fuel cycle facilities which could in effect make the US entirely self-sufficient for running even a much greater number of reactors. Secondly, it is a clear effort to jump start progress on back-end solutions, which the country currently lacks. It will be fascinating to see whether federal enticements for these innovation campuses will be enough to encourage states to step forward and volunteer as waste disposal locations – breaking the long-running deadlock on this issue. These campuses are indeed another fascinating idea, and on the face of things a welcome one. However, questions quickly emerge. What are the potential synergies from collocating these facilities and do they outweigh drawbacks? Another question is whether these campuses might undermine the competitiveness of existing fuel cycle facilities the US already hosts or that are in advanced stages of planning. There is (or was before Russian sanctions) already a functioning competitive market in mining, conversion and enrichment. It is possible to be appreciative and supportive of US
nuclear ambitions and still remain sceptical of them. On 20 January World Nuclear Association launched its World Nuclear Outlook report, with the startling revelation that global government ambition for nuclear energy would, if implemented, exceed the industry’s own goal to triple the amount of nuclear energy by 2050. The US targets alone must make up the lion’s share of this. China would be close behind. Consider today which country is more likely to reach its ambition – the US with its bold market-led ideas, or China with its consistent state-led programme and very capable construction industry – and the answer seems obvious. But let’s not be too hasty. Let’s check again in five and 10 years’ time to see which way the dice land. Someone needs to have bold beautiful transformative ideas in the nuclear industry. Thank you, America. ■
The USA does seem to have gambled its nuclear future on technologies that have yet to be demonstrated at industrial scale. Most – if not
all – of its eggs are in this basket, with the pathway from research and development to large-scale deployment remaining murky at best.
www.neimagazine.com | February 2026| 15
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53
