Why We're Not Building Large Nuclear Reactors (and How to Start Again)
For the first time in a generation, the stars have aligned for a nuclear energy comeback. Public support is rising. Bipartisan enthusiasm is real. Demand for power is surging. So why, in the year 2025, is there not a single large-scale nuclear reactor under construction in the United States?
The short answer: it's not about the technology. It's about the money.
We know how to build nuclear reactors. There are more than 400 operating around the world, and 60 under construction. Yet in the U.S., utilities have hit a financial wall. After a series of cost overruns and regulatory logjams, most utility companies are unwilling to take the financial risk-especially after the headline costs of Georgia Power's Vogtle Plant expansion, the first new reactors completed in a generation.
But here's what that headline misses: the Vogtle project wasn't a failure. It was a proof of concept.
The two new Vogtle reactors were delivered under punishing conditions-COVID disruptions, a new reactor design, supply chain chaos, a major contractor bankruptcy, and a financing environment built for the 1980s. And still, they were finished and are now operating at nearly full capacity. Vogtle didn't expose a technological flaw. It revealed a broken financial model that puts construction risk on the wrong shoulders.
That model can be fixed.
In this new report from the National Center for Energy Analytics, we propose a new approach: treat nuclear construction like any other large-scale infrastructure project. Bring in private equity firms with the experience-and the risk tolerance-to manage complex, capital-intensive builds. Structure deals using project finance models that rely on cheap debt during construction, shifting operational ownership to utilities only after the asset is completed and commissioned.
This isn't theory. It's how we build pipelines, LNG export facilities, airport terminals, bridges, and data centers. And it's exactly the model that could kickstart the next building cycle for America's nuclear industry.
The capital is there. Infrastructure funds hold over $1.4 trillion. Big Tech companies-who want clean, 24/7 power for data centers and AI-are sitting on half a trillion dollars in cash. Many of them are already signing long-term nuclear power purchase agreements. Some are investing directly in SMRs. But the faster, lower-risk bet is to build what we already know: the AP1000 reactor.
What we need now is a "first mover" to prove the economics of this approach-a project that finishes on time, on budget, and de-risks the model for others. With modest government support-mainly loan guarantees and permitting streamlining-we can shift nuclear from a political promise to a financial reality.
If we're serious about affordable, reliable, zero-carbon power in the 21st century, we don't need to invent the next nuclear revolution. We need to finance the one we already have.
More from the blog
.avif)
Gigawatts Aren't All Created Equal: Why the EIA's Capacity Data Misleads Policymakers
The United States is in the midst of a historic shift in how it produces electricity, spurred by tax credits, state mandates, and sweeping federal legislation like the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." More than 1,100...
