The Nuclear Energy Renaissance - The Science & Progress

For most of the past three decades, nuclear power sat in a strange place in our collective imagination. It wasn’t exactly dead - but it wasn’t allowed to matter either. Governments kept existing plants running, engineers quietly improved designs, and regulators refined safety rules. But culturally and politically, nuclear was frozen in time: defined by 20th-century disasters, 20th-century costs, and 20th-century arguments.

Then the world changed.

As we electrify transport, heating, and industry - and as AI and data centres add a new layer of demand - electricity has quietly become the most important commodity on Earth. At the same time, climate constraints are tightening. We don’t just need more power. We need clean power. And not just when the sun shines or the wind blows, but at 3 a.m. on a freezing winter night, or during a week-long heatwave.

That combination has forced an uncomfortable reassessment. Solar and wind are essential, but they don’t solve everything on their own. Fossil fuels are reliable, but incompatible with long-term climate goals. Somewhere between those truths sits nuclear energy - dense, always-on, carbon-free, and politically radioactive.

This edition is about why nuclear is re-entering serious conversation now, after decades in the wilderness. Not as a silver bullet, and not as a nostalgic revival - but as a technology being reshaped by new engineering philosophies, new manufacturing models, and new strategic pressures.

By the end of this edition, you’ll understand how modern nuclear actually works, why it stalled for so long, what has genuinely changed since the 2010s, and what still must go right for this “renaissance” to be real rather than rhetorical.

If this has been forwarded to you, you can subscribe for free here to get more deep dives on the innovations shaping our world.

At its core, nuclear power is both more exotic, and more mundane, than most people expect.

Exotic, because it draws energy from the atomic nucleus itself. Mundane, because after all the physics is done, a nuclear power plant does the same thing humans have done for centuries: it boils water to make steam, spins a turbine, and generates electricity.

Everything interesting, and controversial, about nuclear energy lives in how we create and control that heat.

Nuclear power begins with a specific kind of atom: uranium-235. What makes U-235 special isn’t that it’s radioactive, many things are, but that it’s fissile - when a free neutron hits a U-235 nucleus, the atom can split into two smaller atoms. That split releases three things at once: a burst of heat, a few more neutrons, and energy locked inside the nucleus itself.

Those newly released neutrons can then strike nearby uranium atoms, causing more splits. This is a chain reaction. Left completely unchecked, that chain reaction accelerates violently - this is what happens in a nuclear weapon. In a power plant, the entire engineering challenge is to control that reaction.

Think of it less like an explosion and more like a carefully tended campfire. Too little reaction and the fire goes out. Too much and things get dangerous. The job of a reactor is to keep the fire burning at exactly the right intensity, hour after hour, year after year.

One counterintuitive detail matters enormously: fast neutrons are actually too fast to efficiently trigger more fission. To sustain a controlled chain reaction, neutrons must be slowed down. That’s where the moderator comes in.

In most reactors today, ordinary water acts as the moderator. When neutrons collide with water molecules, they lose energy - like a cue ball bouncing off other balls on a pool table - until they’re moving slowly enough to cause additional fission events. This simple physical interaction gives operators a powerful control lever over the reaction.

Control rods provide the second lever. Made of materials that absorb neutrons (like boron or cadmium), these rods can be inserted into or withdrawn from the reactor core. Push them in further, and they soak up neutrons, slowing the reaction. Pull them out slightly, and the reaction speeds up. It’s a dimmer switch, not an on-off button.

Crucially, modern Gen III+ and advanced reactors are designed so that if anything goes wrong - loss of power, operator error, system failure - the physics itself pushes the system toward shutdown, not runaway.

Once fission generates heat, the rest of the plant looks surprisingly familiar.

That heat is transferred to water, producing steam. The steam spins a turbine. The turbine turns a generator. Electrons flow. Electricity enters the grid.

In many reactor designs, there are multiple water loops, each with a different job. The primary loop passes directly through the reactor core, where the fuel sits, and is kept under extremely high pressure so the water never boils. That hot water then flows through a steam generator, where it passes inside sealed metal tubes.

Water from a separate secondary loop flows around those tubes, absorbs heat through the metal walls, and boils into steam that spins the turbine. Because the two loops never mix, and only heat crosses between them, radioactive material remains trapped inside the sealed primary system. Even if something goes wrong in the turbine hall, there is no direct path back to the reactor core.

From the outside, the turbine hall of a nuclear plant looks much like that of a coal or gas plant - just without the smokestacks.

This is why engineers often say nuclear power isn’t really an electricity technology; it’s a heat source. What makes it valuable is not magic electrons, but extraordinarily dense, reliable heat that doesn’t depend on weather or combustion.

If nuclear power were designed today from scratch, its safety philosophy would probably be considered conservative to the point of paranoia. That’s because it relies not on one perfect system, but on many imperfect ones stacked together.

First, the fuel itself is ceramic and solid, not liquid or gaseous. Then it’s sealed inside metal cladding. That fuel sits inside a thick steel reactor vessel. That vessel is surrounded by reinforced concrete containment. On top of that come operating procedures, monitoring systems, and regulatory oversight.

Each layer assumes the previous one might fail. The goal isn’t to promise zero failures, it’s to ensure that failures don’t cascade into catastrophe.

Modern designs increasingly lean on passive safety - features that work without human action or external power. If cooling water stops flowing, gravity pulls it where it needs to go. If temperatures rise, physical expansion slows the reaction automatically. These aren’t clever algorithms; they’re laws of nature doing free labor.

Understanding this machine changes the nuclear debate. Nuclear power isn’t mysterious, nor is it a barely restrained bomb. It’s a controlled heat engine governed by physics that engineers understand extremely well.

The hard part has never been whether nuclear can work. It’s been whether societies can build, regulate, finance, and trust these machines at scale.

To see why that proved so difficult, and why it might finally be changing, we need to understand what went wrong the first time around.

The technology worked. The system around it didn’t.

If nuclear power were judged purely on physics, it would never have gone into exile. The underlying science has been stable since the mid-20th century. Reactors produced massive amounts of reliable electricity with tiny land footprints and near-zero operational emissions. From a technical standpoint, nuclear didn’t fail.

What failed was everything around the reactor.

Over time, nuclear energy fell into three reinforcing traps - political, economic, and institutional - that turned a working technology into a near-impossible one to scale.

The first was a trust trap. A small number of high-profile accidents - rare, but dramatic - ended nuclear’s social license. Each event carried images that burned into public memory: evacuation zones, abandoned towns, radiation suits. Even as designs improved, the narrative froze. Once that fear took hold, every new project faced opposition intense enough to slow, litigate, or kill it outright.

The second was a megaproject trap. As new plants became politically sensitive and regulatory scrutiny intensified, nuclear construction drifted toward massive, bespoke projects. Each reactor was treated like a one-off cathedral rather than a repeatable product. Long timelines stretched into decades. Costs ballooned. Delays fed investor anxiety, which raised financing costs, which made projects even more expensive. That vicious cycle meant fewer plants were built - and with fewer builds came fewer experienced workers, lost institutional knowledge, and even higher execution risk.

The third was a back-end trap: nuclear waste. Technically, managing spent fuel is a solved engineering problem. The volumes are small, the materials are stable, and geological disposal has been designed and stress tested for decades. Politically, however, waste became the nuclear industry’s original sin. Without visible, operating repositories, opponents could argue that nuclear was “borrowing from the future.” Each stalled waste project reinforced the perception that nuclear promised solutions later - and asked society to trust it now.

Together, these traps created a deadlock. Fear raised costs. High costs reduced builds. Fewer builds eroded expertise. And every stumble confirmed the narrative that nuclear was uniquely difficult.

The result wasn’t a dramatic collapse, but something quieter and more damaging: stagnation. Nuclear didn’t disappear - it just stopped learning. And in an industry where cost declines come from repetition, that pause was devastating.

To understand why nuclear is resurfacing today, you have to see what finally broke that stalemate - and which of these traps are starting, slowly, to loosen.

For a long time, nuclear’s story sounded the same every decade: promising ideas, cautious pilots, and then a return to gridlock. What makes the current moment different isn’t a single breakthrough, but a stack of them - quiet, technical advances that, together, start to loosen the traps that held nuclear in place.

The first shift was philosophical. Earlier generations of reactors relied heavily on active systems - pumps, valves, backup generators - and on human operators responding correctly under pressure. Those systems worked most of the time, but when they failed, they failed loudly.

Modern reactor designs flipped that logic. Instead of asking machines and people to heroically intervene, engineers leaned into passive safety: designs that default to safe states using gravity, natural circulation, and basic thermodynamics. If power is lost, coolant flows downward instead of stopping. If temperatures rise, the nuclear reaction naturally slows.

This matters not because accidents suddenly become impossible, but because the worst-case scenarios shrink. When regulators and the public see that a reactor can shut itself down without external power or perfect decision-making, the entire risk conversation changes. Safety stops being a promise and becomes a property of the design itself.

The second shift attacked nuclear’s cost disease at its root. Traditional nuclear plants were built like monuments - huge, bespoke structures assembled on-site over many years. Every delay compounded financing costs. Every design change rippled through thousands of custom components.

Small modular reactors (SMRs) reframed the problem. Instead of “build everything in place,” the idea is “build most things in factories.” Smaller reactor units can be fabricated, tested, and standardized before ever reaching a site. In theory, this turns nuclear construction from artisanal craft into industrial production - early SMRs have started operations in Russia and China with growing fleets being planned in North America and Europe.

The immediate benefit isn’t that SMRs are automatically cheap. First-of-a-kind units rarely are. The benefit is repeatability. Cost curves only bend when the second, fifth, and tenth units are meaningfully easier than the first. SMRs give nuclear a plausible path back to learning-by-doing - something it largely lost for a generation.

Another quiet breakthrough happened at the level of fuel itself. Advanced fuels, particularly so-called “accident-tolerant” designs, embed safety directly into the fuel particles.

The most famous example is TRISO fuel, which packages uranium inside multiple layers of ceramic and carbon so that even at extremely high temperatures it stays intact, keeping radioactive fission products from leaking into the reactor’s cooling systems - where they would raise radiation levels and complicate recovery.

Think of this as containment at the microscopic level. Even if cooling is lost, the fuel remains intact far longer than conventional designs allow. This doesn’t eliminate risk - but it stretches response time dramatically, which is often the difference between a manageable incident and a crisis.

Fuel innovation also opens doors to new reactor types that operate at higher temperatures or with different coolants, expanding nuclear’s potential beyond electricity into industrial heat and hydrogen production.

Waste has always been nuclear’s most emotionally powerful objection. For decades, critics could reasonably ask: “If this is so safe, why is no one willing to deal with the leftovers?”

What’s changing is visibility. Geological disposal - placing spent fuel deep underground in stable rock formations - has moved from theory to practice in a small number of places, such as Finland’s Onkalo facility and Sweden’s Forsmark repository. These projects aren’t flashy, but that’s the point. They demonstrate that long-term waste management can be boring, routine infrastructure rather than a perpetual political standoff.

Once waste disposal becomes something society does, rather than endlessly debates, one of nuclear’s most persistent narrative weapons begins to dull.

Finally, the industry absorbed some painful education. High-profile cost overruns and delays in large reactor projects during the 2010s were not anomalies; they were stress tests. They revealed where nuclear construction breaks down: fragmented supply chains, loss of skilled labor, and regulatory processes that changed mid-build.

The response has been slow but real. New projects place heavier emphasis on standardized designs, frozen specifications, and construction sequences borrowed from industries that deliver complex systems repeatedly. Financing models have also evolved to recognize that long build times make cost of capital as important as concrete and steel.

This doesn’t guarantee success. But it means nuclear is no longer pretending that yesterday’s approach will somehow work tomorrow.

Nuclear is no longer trapped by the assumption that it must be unsafe, unaffordable, or politically untouchable by design. It still has to prove itself - on cost, on timelines, on waste, and on public trust - but the proof is now testable rather than theoretical.

That sets the stage for the hardest part of the story: what still needs to go right, and why the next ten years matter far more than the last thirty.

If the last decade reopened the nuclear question, the next one decides the answer.

Modern reactor designs are safer on paper. Fuel is more resilient. Waste solutions are more tangible. But none of that matters unless nuclear clears a harder bar: proving it can be built reliably, repeatedly, and at a cost that grids can actually absorb. This is no longer a physics challenge. It’s an industrial one.

Five hurdles now stand between “renaissance” as rhetoric and renaissance as reality.

The single most important question facing nuclear today is brutally simple: do costs fall meaningfully after the first few builds?

Historically, nuclear failed this test. Each new plant became more expensive than the last, not less. The reasons are now well understood - custom designs, regulatory changes mid-construction, long delays that ballooned financing costs - but understanding doesn’t equal solving.

For nuclear to scale, the fifth or tenth unit of a given design must be materially cheaper and faster than the first. That means frozen designs, disciplined project management, and a refusal to “improve” plants mid-build. If early projects don’t show clear learning effects, capital will retreat again, regardless of how elegant the technology looks.

Nuclear regulation exists for good reason. The problem is not that standards are high, but that processes are slow, sequential, and often country-specific.

A workable future requires regulators to focus less on reinventing reviews for every project and more on certifying standardized designs that can be deployed repeatedly. This doesn’t mean cutting corners. It means recognizing that a reactor proven safe once does not need to be re-proven from first principles every time it’s built.

Time is not a neutral variable here. Every year added to a construction schedule raises financing costs and erodes competitiveness. In nuclear economics, permitting speed is as consequential as fuel price.

Advanced reactors depend on fuel types that are not yet produced at scale. That includes higher-enrichment fuels and specialized fabrication processes. Today, these supply chains are thin - and in some cases geopolitically awkward.

For nuclear to grow, fuel availability has to become reliable. That means new enrichment capacity, qualified fabrication lines, and long-term contracting that gives suppliers confidence to invest. Until this happens, even well-designed reactors risk becoming stranded assets, technically viable but fuel-constrained.

Decades of stagnation created a quiet skills crisis. Many of the people who knew how to deliver nuclear projects on time and on budget retired without replacements. Welding standards, quality assurance culture, and construction sequencing in nuclear are unforgiving - and they don’t tolerate improvisation.

The next wave of projects must rebuild this muscle memory. That includes training operators, inspectors, engineers, and project managers, but also rebuilding supply chains that can meet nuclear-grade specifications consistently. This is slow, unglamorous work. It is also non-negotiable.

Perhaps the most underestimated unlock is social, not technical. Nuclear waste stops being a fatal objection only when disposal becomes something society sees operating quietly in the background.

Geological repositories need to exist, function, and fade into normality - like landfills or wastewater treatment plants. The moment waste management becomes routine infrastructure rather than a perpetual exception, nuclear’s most powerful emotional critique weakens.

Put together, these hurdles outline a narrow but navigable path. The next decade is not about bold promises or revolutionary designs. It’s about execution under constraints: fixed designs, fixed schedules, visible learning, and repeated success.

If nuclear clears these gates, it doesn’t just regain credibility - it changes category. It stops being a controversial experiment and becomes what it always aspired to be: dependable infrastructure in a power-hungry world.

And that brings us to the final question of this edition: when do these proofs need to show up - and what milestones will tell us whether the renaissance is real, or just another false dawn?

If nuclear energy fails it won’t be loudly, it will be slowly - through delays, deferrals, and quiet cancellations. That’s why judging its revival by announcements or political slogans is misleading. The only thing that matters is sequence: what happens first, what must follow, and where momentum either compounds or collapses.

The next 15 years form a narrow corridor. Miss the milestones inside it, and nuclear risks sliding back into irrelevance. Hit them, and it re-enters the energy system as durable infrastructure.

The mid-2020s are about proof of seriousness, not scale.

This is when early advanced-reactor projects must move beyond licensing headlines into physical reality: sites prepared, concrete poured, long-lead components ordered. It’s also when waste management crosses a symbolic threshold. The moment geological repositories shift from “planned” to “operating,” nuclear’s longest-running unresolved question starts to close.

Another quiet but decisive signal in this window is fuel. Enrichment and fabrication capacity for advanced fuels must begin expanding before reactors need it. If fuel supply lags designs, the renaissance stalls before it starts.

The second half of the decade is where excuses run out.

This is when first-of-a-kind small modular reactors and new large-reactor builds either connect to the grid roughly on schedule - or don’t. The absolute cost matters less than whether things get better with repetition: did construction timelines tighten? Did costs stay within forecast ranges? Did regulators avoid mid-build redesigns?

Repeat orders are the tell. A second or third unit ordered after the first begins operation signals confidence. Silence signals trouble.

By the early 2030s, nuclear’s fate should be legible.

If modularization works, factories are producing multiple reactor units per year. Build times fall. Financing costs ease as risk premiums shrink. Nuclear starts behaving like an industry again, not a series of heroic projects.

If this doesn’t happen - if every project remains bespoke, slow, and politically fragile - capital will flow elsewhere. At that point, nuclear doesn’t collapse. It simply stops being chosen.

Around 2035, a simple question will cut through decades of debate: is global nuclear capacity clearly growing again, or merely treading water?

Growth doesn’t need to be explosive. It needs to be sustained. Hitting capacity milestones consistent with a path toward tripling global nuclear output by mid-century would signal that nuclear has re-earned its place. Falling well short would confirm that the renaissance was more narrative than reality.

If nuclear clears the 2030s, the 2040s look surprisingly unglamorous - and that’s the goal. Reactors get ordered, built, and operated with minimal drama. Waste is managed quietly. Nuclear becomes part of the background architecture of decarbonized grids.

If it doesn’t, nuclear will slowly fade. Existing plants run out their lives. A few niche projects persist. But the window for large-scale revival closes.

The irony of the nuclear renaissance is that success won’t look like triumph. It will look like competence. Quiet construction. Predictable costs. Few headlines.

And that, more than any breakthrough or promise, is what the next decade must deliver.

In the next edition, we move from how nuclear works to what it means. We will map where value is actually created in the nuclear renaissance, who stands to win or lose, which bottlenecks will determine timelines, and how this reshapes energy markets, geopolitics, and careers over the next two decades. It’s written for readers who want not just understanding, but strategic clarity. If you’d like access to the next edition when it publishes, you’ll need to upgrade to a premium subscription, you can do so here.

Speak soon,

Max