We cannot afford to let unfounded public concern about nuclear energy stand in the way of progress, says Tony Blair Institute

A New Nuclear Age - Embargoed

Revitalising Nuclear: The UK Can Power AI and Lead the Clean-Energy Transition - Embargoed

The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI) has today set out how the new dawn for nuclear energy represents a significant opportunity for the UK.

In ‘Revitalising Nuclear: The UK Can Power AI and Lead the Clean Energy Transition' the authors point out that the UK has maintained strong expertise in nuclear that can provide hope for the future:

“The UK can harness innovative nuclear technologies to power its AI future, help decarbonise its industries and deliver low-cost electricity for its grids. It could become a leader in nuclear technology and expertise, providing good jobs and economic growth across the country, and forming strategic geopolitical relationships with the US and beyond.”

For the UK to benefit, it needs a new, bold strategy – designed for the future of the nuclear industry.

Proposals in the paper include:

• Introducing new “AI growth zones” around the country, with simplified planning and environmental permitting for new nuclear for AI data centres.
• Accepting new nuclear design approvals from trusted international regulators such as the US, Canada, France and South Korea without going through the UK regulatory process to enable faster approvals of new designs.
• Requiring the Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) to regard approval of a single reactor as the basis for fleet approval to standardise design across deployment.
• Introducing a two-year limit for the ONR and Environment Agency to licence nuclear reactors that are similar to previously licenced designs.
• Concluding the government's Small Modular Reactor (SMR) competition by creating a pooled-demand vehicle for a small fleet of reactors, inviting AI hyperscalers to contribute.

Report lead author and TBI Senior Policy Advisor for Climate and Energy Tone Langengen said:

“A new nuclear age is beginning. But whether it continues will depend entirely on whether leaders are willing to move past false alarm and ideology, making judgement based upon fact-based assessment of risk. Only then will they harness the power of nuclear quickly and at low cost.  

“To achieve this, the world must learn the lessons from the history of nuclear energy. Whether it is the new nuclear renaissance or other technologies that will help fight climate change, the world cannot afford to let unfounded public concern stand in the way of progress.

“In the UK this means reforming the regulatory system so we can harness inward investment from AI companies and deeper our relationship with the US.”

In a companion paper also published today TBI details how the world is paying a price for letting outdated and torqued safety and ideological opposition deter governments from using nuclear energy.

In ‘A New Nuclear Age' the authors Tone Langengen, Jeegar Kakkad and Benedict Macon-Cooney find that if the nuclear power growth rates continued as before Chernobyl then the world as a whole would have saved 28.9 Gt of CO2 since 1991. This is 3.1% of the emissions in this period, equivalent to a full average year of energy emissions. The same as shutting down 903 average coal power plants continuously for the entire period.

In 2023, global emissions would be 6% lower, saving 2.1Gt of CO2. This is the same as taking 460 million cars from the road for a year or removing the emissions of Canada, South Korea, Australia and Mexico combined.

If the UK had maintained nuclear capacity at around 30%, energy-related emissions would be 7.7% lower in 2023.

The authors argue that nuclear energy is a safe form of energy, with significant benefits in terms of reducing emissions and creating balanced, low-cost energy systems:

“Public perception of the risk of nuclear power is not commensurate with the actual risk. In the entire history of nuclear energy, there have been only two major accidents (those at Chernobyl and Fukushima) and the effects of these, while serious, have been significantly over-estimated.”

In the 32 years before Chernobyl, 409 reactors were opened, but only 194 have been connected in the three decades since. By the mid-1980s nuclear power made up about 15 per cent of global electricity generation; today nuclear power plants generate approximately 10 per cent of global electricity, sourced from about 440 reactors worldwide.  

The public understanding of nuclear power has been shaped by widespread misperceptions based on incorrect claims around key accidents like Chernobyl, as well as the claims of the anti-nuclear movement. This has resulted in an inaccurate perception of the technology's real risks and rewards.  

The relatively limited risks associated with nuclear energy are manageable, but the benefits of harnessing nuclear power are significant. Nuclear power is carbon-free; it generates more energy per square metre of land use than any fossil fuel or renewable; and it could help stabilise grids and provide low-cost energy systems.

As the authors say in the paper:

“Political leaders aspiring to meet rising energy demands, reduce energy costs and provide security and growth, now have a choice based on facts. Whether they choose to build nuclear now is entirely within their gift. Many are now showing their willingness to move past false alarm and ideology, making judgement based upon fact-based assessment of risk. And they are moving fast towards the future.” 

Note on methodology for A New Nuclear Age paper

To explore what could have happened if the world had not turned away from nuclear power, we have segmented the world into three groups:

High nuclear capacity: Countries that had already started adopting nuclear technology or were in a position to do so before Chernobyl, including European countries, countries in the former USSR, countries in North America, Japan and South Korea. For these countries we have assumed that nuclear adoption rates rise in line with actuals for the first five years post Chernobyl (1986-199), and then continues to rise at the same average rate as these five years (2.75%) every year until it hits 30% of total electricity generation when growth slows to 0.5%. For comparison, the actual average was 16.6 per cent in 2023.

Medium nuclear capacity: Countries that were beginning to develop rapidly in the period following Chernobyl and that could have capacity to begin to develop nuclear programmes, but mostly had not done so before 1986. This includes China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Brazil and Argentina, among others. For this group we assume nuclear as a share of electricity generation follows actuals until 1996 when it begins to increase by 15% every year.

Low nuclear capacity: Developing countries that were unlikely to develop nuclear programmes due to the high capital cost and poorly developed grids. Within this group we assume no change.

For Japan we assume that nuclear generation remains steady at 292 TWh.

For Germany we assume that generation is 175TWh every year since 2002, slightly higher than the 2002 level.

For the US we assume continued strong but falling growth rate in the 80s and 90s until nuclear hits c.40% of electricity generation.