DAVID HESS | OPINION


The idea that an average Joe could go to the hardware shop, buy, install and operate their own nuclear power plant free of any invasive oversight is so removed from the reality of the nuclear sector today that the


very idea of it is ludicrous. And yet this will often be suggested by the nuclear-curious, who wonder why the technology is so inaccessible


rest of the energy sector. Sometimes nuclear facilities end up protected from market forces while at other times, as Germany and Taiwan have demonstrated, governments will angrily slap that hand if it differs with their political priorities. Profitable nuclear plants will close for no particularly good safety reason, if that is the political whim. With all the red tape it is hard to be a private commercial


start-up pursuing a potential ‘disruptive’ change in the nuclear industry. The bureaucratic barriers to entry protect the incumbents and shield the industry from change. Consider Westinghouse, for example, which filed for bankruptcy protection in 2017 but has re-emerged into much the same market position. Understanding this should inspire a respect for the companies that are trying to break in. The global nuclear market is a tough nut to crack.


It is evident that many people working in the established


nuclear industry today are happy with this close government connection, or perhaps see it as fundamentally necessary for the public acceptance and peaceful use of these technologies. Many individuals will rotate between industry and government during their careers. Nuclear is special, a national interest, and by extension so are the people that work in the field. Industry culture and mindsets typically reflect this. If a


new safety requirement is demanded then industry will typically seek to meet it rather than make a fuss. It is fine with an over-abundance of caution. On the other hand, if an innovative new idea pops up that requires a change of law, then it will likely face a hard time winning support from the established industry. Illegal may as well mean impossible to a government-controlled nuclear enterprise. The concept that there should be less government


involvement in all things nuclear is for the most part still a fringe one. Unsurprisingly, it is taken most seriously by that great free-market champion the USA, while in Europe and Asia there is currently little sign of it. Indeed, in Europe there is a campaign to build political support for nuclear energy and for governments to become directly involved in financing nuclear projects. Industry here seems to be looking to government for the answer to the issues that beset it. Across the Atlantic, it is fascinating to observe


the attempts that are now being made by the Trump administration to remove some of the bureaucracy and excess regulation afflicting the industry. Executive order 14300 to reform the NRC has caught everyone’s attention. Is it even possible to reduce the nuclear regulatory burden without eroding the social license to operate? We watch with baited breath. That said there is a large volume of other policy initiatives that impact the industry in some way. Nuclear – and energy generally – is certainly not becoming any less political in the USA.


In a world where government seems increasingly intent


on asserting itself on business and everyday life, the nuclear industry could honestly stand to be a little more commercially oriented and apolitical, free from direct national control and influence, and maybe just maybe a little more accessible to Joe. It would be nice, for instance, if it was less challenging


to establish a nuclear sector and build a nuclear plant, and also less of a societal upheaval whenever one closes down. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if nuclear plants integrated more naturally into existing competitive energy markets and didn’t require market structures to be fundamentally redesigned to accommodate new build? Embracing nuclear expansion shouldn’t have to mean rolling back energy market deregulation. While public private partnerships seem to be the by-word


in infrastructure development these days, what would be really great to see is more fully private nuclear projects backed by private capital making reasonable profits without governments tilting the scale. It is the private piece that is arguably the missing ingredient of a 3x nuclear future. Private approaches would help to drive much needed efficiencies within the sector. Let’s face it, there are plenty of efficiencies to realise and especially at the back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Or looked at another way, governments shouldn’t have to


do it all when it comes to decarbonisation and the energy transition. Industry and private actors should increasingly be sharing the load. As for the pathway, it is clear that the gigawatt-scale


reactor designs offer little scope for minimising government involvement and regulation. The sheer scale of the facilities and investments, the impacts on the national grid and the risks posed by the radiological inventory (safety or security) just accrete paperwork. There is however a genuine opportunity with the smaller modular reactor and the micro-reactors especially to create a more competitive nuclear industry – backed by private capital supporting private industry. This must be fought for. It won’t just happen unless civil groups, future customers and the industry make it happen. The irony is not lost that getting there will require governments to help the innovators achieve commercialisation of novel designs, not to mention support the idea of lessening their own powers. It is true that the nuclear sector creates unique risks


and effective governance will always be required. But the idea that these risks are uniquely dangerous is no longer as true as it once was. Society today faces a myriad of threats and concerns, of which nuclear accidents or rogue use of nuclear weaponry is only one. If we to truly want to accelerate the deployment of nuclear energy globally then we have to be willing to take the handbrake off, as well as simply seek more incentives for construction. ■


www.neimagazine.com | September 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