DAVID HESS | OPINION


There is a direct connection between the time taken on nuclear projects and the sensitivity of our industry to political risks.


Progress is what dissuades cancellation. Put simply, the nuclear sector needs to move faster


is involved. And As Germany proved, an incident need not even take place in one’s own country for a sizable chunk of the national nuclear fleet to receive a shut down order that becomes all too final. These are the timescales of nuclear energy today and


frankly they suck. The nuclear industry is not alone in the bucket of ponderously slow infrastructure developments, but nuclear facilities are perhaps uniquely threatened by the possibility of a collective and sudden undignified stop. A frustrating fact is that nuclear energy development is


often slower than the problems it aims to solve. Ok, that is not quite right. More accurate is to say that the timescales of nuclear energy sit uncomfortably with human decision making and political processes. Attention spans are just not that long. Political will begins to wander. For instance, energy security has not stopped being an


issue, but the public memory of the recent energy crisis and cost spike is already beginning to fade. Nor evidently is climate change solved but after three decades the global political appetite for climate action seems to have waned recently too. And where nuclear projects have received political approval, can we really count on that approval holding if two elections later no ground has been broken? There is a direct connection between the time taken on nuclear projects and the sensitivity of our industry to political risks. Progress is what dissuades cancellation. Put simply, the nuclear sector needs to move faster. If a genie appeared and offered to make nuclear energy


cost half as much or for nuclear projects to take half as long, the clear choice would be to select the latter. Fortunately, this is not actually an either-or choice. We know that completing nuclear plants more quickly will make them much cheaper, but please no one tell the genie. To be fair, some of this is a reflection upon society


rather than the nuclear industry. We now live an age where the videos people mostly watch are less than 30 seconds long. The pace of life just seems to grow ever faster, and expectations of immediacy are intensifying. This hardly seems healthy, but it is reality of modern life. Amazon does same-day delivery. So where is that nuclear plant already? It must be hard for a young person to relate


to things that are expected to materialise only 15 – 20 years from now. How does that translate into a life plan exactly? The timescales of nuclear energy are marginalising the technology and pushing it towards irrelevancy. Donald Trump will (allegedly) enact executive orders


to speed up the construction of nuclear power. As with so many Trump actions it is hard to know exactly how to feel about this, but it is easy to see where the desire has come from. Can the various appendages of the nuclear industry really be ordered into urgent action or is this a case of King Canute shouting at the tide. It is akin to being asked to change one’s cultural beliefs.


Established nuclear industry culture is risk averse and lends itself to extensive consultation and study, strict regulatory compliance and even going beyond regulatory requirements in many cases. Clearly there are many individuals, companies and organisations in the industry that are ok with the slow pace of progress. To be fair to them this culture been shown to work and ensures a high degree of public safety and nuclear security. Can we maintain the same standard of protection if we


cut the red tape and begin to move at speed? The answer had better be yes. Legal and regulatory reforms were always going to be a necessity on the journey of tripling nuclear energy globally. It seems we are just getting to that point sooner than we expected. Perhaps, as with the already notorious import tariffs, the Trump Executive Orders will trigger a wave of response across Europe and beyond. After all, who wants to be left behind? The upshot is that the industry needs to embrace this


acceleration and not fight it. Nuclear is demonstrably safe, but there’s really no point in being safe if nuclear remains irrelevant to the lives of people it hopes to serve. Eclipsing the previous nuclear generation record


needs to be more than just a symbolic milestone, it has to happen year after year. It also needs to herald the birth of a more nimble and agile nuclear sector that is actually serious about hitting its own 3X aspirational goals. A strong vision is admirable, but it begins to look a bit silly if year after year you fail to take meaningful steps towards it. ■


Eclipsing the previous nuclear generation record needs to be more than just a symbolic milestone, it has to happen year after year. It also needs to herald the birth of a more nimble and agile nuclear sector that is actually serious about hitting its own 3X aspirational goals


www.neimagazine.com | June 2025 | 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