Beyond the Core: Advancing Nuclear Solutions for the Future 

Disclosure
This podcast is for general information purposes only and is not advice. Outside of the United States this episode is intended for investment professional use only, not for further distribution. Please listen to the end for complete information.

Cold open: What we do feel confident in is that whatever happens, all of the potential solutions for providing nuclear power are going to require a lot of uranium. And with this renewed momentum behind nuclear power, the world could definitely face a significant deficit in uranium supply.

Jackie Fortner

Welcome back to The Angle from T. Rowe Price, a podcast for curious investors. I'm your host, Jackie Fortner, a portfolio specialist at T. Rowe Price Associates, here in Baltimore. In this season, we've been exploring the rapidly evolving energy landscape and what could lie ahead for the future of energy generation and storage around the world. And just a reminder that outside of the U.S., this podcast is intended for investment professionals only.

In this final episode of the season, I'm joined by Rick de los Reyes, Portfolio Manager and Head of Commodities, and Maria Drew, our Head of Global Sustainability, for a discussion on the exciting and challenging potential of nuclear energy. As governments race to secure reliable domestic power, nuclear energy is reemerging as a reliable and low carbon solution. For many countries, the buildout of new nuclear power stations will require a huge amount of investment. There will also be significant barriers to overcome if policymakers want to accelerate the development of nuclear power. We're going to tackle all of this and more in our discussion today. Rick, Maria, thanks for joining me.

Rick de los Reyes

Thanks for having me, Jackie. It's great to be here.

Maria Drew

Yeah, thanks, Jackie. Looking forward to our discussion.

Jackie Fortner

So, thank you both. Let's maybe begin with the return of nuclear in the energy mix. For decades, nuclear power appeared to be in the decline. So, what, really, if we stand back, what's behind this comeback globally?

Maria Drew

So, the drivers of the comeback are really the benefits that nuclear can bring from an energy security perspective, and also an environmental perspective. Obviously nuclear is a zero carbon source of energy. And also it reduces the need to import fossil fuels, if you can displace them. Additionally, where there's been a very big cost issue around nuclear, there is some optimism that the landscape can change.

And I think to understand these drivers, you need to know a little bit more about the history of nuclear power generation. So, this is something that emerged in the 1950s, but it really didn't start to scale until the 1970s. And then you saw a huge period of growth in nuclear capacity up until about the mid-90s. This was largely driven by the oil crisis, and lots of national plans to respond to the oil crisis. The biggest capacity additions came from places like the United States, France, Japan and Russia, or what was the Soviet Union at the time. So, from the 90s onwards, you see three divergent paths, which I think are important to understand when you look at the future story for nuclear. The first is countries like the U.S. and France and the United Kingdom just no longer adding new capacity. The biggest reason for this stagnation is just a combination of a really benign energy demand growth environment, and also the very high upfront cost of nuclear.

The second group of countries are really quite different, and these are ones that really actively shut down their nuclear capacity, really as a reaction to very negative public response to nuclear accidents. So, a great example of this is Italy. So, at one point in the 70s, Italy actually had plans to build up to 20 nuclear reactors. And only one of these 20 was completed. That was in 1978. And the plans for the rest were all eventually scrapped. The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 was really the big catalyst, and it triggered a very strong public opposition to nuclear. And in 1987, Italian voters went as far as to pass a referendum to phase out all nuclear power. So today, you legally can't build a nuclear power plant in Italy.

Another really good example of this is Germany. So, Germany has always had, what you might call an uneasy relationship with nuclear. And this was driven by the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. And while the Germans never went quite as far as the Italians in terms of banning the build of nuclear, and adding new capacity really was not politically palatable. And then there was a strange coincidence of events, when the Fukushima accident happened, there was actually already a planned environmental protest in Germany. And the accident just brought out huge, huge crowds to this rally. And that particular event really turned the tides in Germany. And it actually caused the immediate shutdown of seven of the country's oldest reactors, and then a full phase out of all of nuclear by 2022. So, you do have this cohort of countries that kind of actively left the nuclear sphere. And now there's some questions about what will happen with them in the future.

And then the third group of countries are those that have really actively grown their nuclear capacity since the 1990s. And good examples of these are China and South Korea. So, I just say, like coming back to the modern day, you really have a new dynamic. So, firstly there's energy demand growth that has picked up. So, after two decades of stagnating electricity demand growth in the U.S. and Europe, we're now seeing pretty strong demand growth. This is due to the shift towards electrification, driven by decarbonization objectives and also rising energy needs from AI. And the second thing is energy security has become, you know, much more important in the world. There are a lot of countries looking to lessen or actually eliminate their fossil fuel imports.

Rick de los Reyes

I think that's a great point, Maria, there about energy security. And I agree with that. I definitely think energy security is a big, big driver behind the resurgence in nuclear power. And I think as an example of that you can see the executive order that the White House issued in May of 2025. The Trump administration, in that order, they call for a quadrupling of nuclear energy capacity by 2050, which is a very ambitious undertaking.

We've also seen the UK and the U.S. unveil a nuclear energy agreement focused on speeding up the development of nuclear power. So, we are seeing more and more countries that see nuclear power as a key component of their national security. And countries like the U.S. are trying to set themselves apart as a world leader in nuclear standards, and that that means they're going to be competing directly with the likes of Russia and China.

Now, I do also think it's important to note that, you know, there is definitely a comeback. And countries are working on speeding things up, but this is going to take time. The most recently constructed nuclear power plant in the U.S, which was the Vogtle plant in Georgia, that took over a decade to build. So, the nuclear comeback is still happening. It's likely going to continue, but it's going to be more of a steady comeback I would say than an overnight change.

Jackie Fortner

With the global focus on energy security, and then also around-the-clock power, both of those seem to be really important for many countries, including the U.S.

So, Rick, if we narrow it, you know, speaking specifically to the U.S., what are the barriers to accelerating American nuclear capacity?

Rick de los Reyes

A great question. There's a lot of things standing in the way. I'll start off by talking about where we are today. The U.S. nuclear fleet has 94 reactors. Capacity is around 100GW. That provides about 20% of the country's electrons. Now, the majority of that capacity was built back in the 1970s and the 1980s. And in fact, since the early 90s, we've had just 6GW of capacity added across five reactors. So, if we actually want to quadruple U.S. nuclear energy capacity by 2050, which is what that White House executive order says we want to do, you would actually need to build an additional 15GW per year of nuclear capacity between 2030 and 2050. Now, compare that number to the peak commissioning number that we ever had, which was 10.5GW. And we did that back in 1974. So, for this to work, we're going to need more than the standard nukes, which are known as the AP1000s. We're definitely going to also need to see the adoption of small modular reactors or SMRs.

Jackie Fortner

And anyone who was listening to our last episode on utilities, Vineet Khanna illustrated for us just how significant the increase of even one gigawatt of energy is. It was the equivalent electricity demand for a mid-sized city. And you're talking about, you know, needing to add 15 gigs. That's a huge undertaking.

Rick de los Reyes

Exactly, exactly. So, you know, so back to your original question, if we want that kind of a large-scale investment, it's just not realistic unless we remove some of these significant barriers to growth that we've had in the last couple of decades. And that includes the licensing and the permitting. It includes bringing down the cost and making these investments really bankable. It's about the workforce and the supply chain. And then finally, you know, as I just mentioned, we really need to speed the development of SMRs.

So, I'll start with the licensing and permitting obstacles. And this is something that we consistently hear from companies in the power generation business, when we meet and talk with them on a regular basis. What we hear from them is that if we really want to see mass deployment of nuclear power, the government is going to have to assist in setting the technology standards, and it's going to need to be the first mover in deployment. Now, fortunately, the White House executive order seeks to address this. So, specifically President Trump called for the deployment of new SMR technology at a domestic U.S. Army base by no later than September of 2028. Now, what's important is that the licensing, permitting and testing process for nuclear power plants at military bases falls solely under the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy. So, we think that successfully deploying SMR technology at a government site like that is going to go a long way towards jumpstarting the addition of new nuclear power plants by the private sector. Now, the next issue is that constructing all of this new capacity is going to be very costly. Now if we go back to the Vogtle plant expansion in Georgia, that took over a decade. Not only did it take longer than expected, but it actually cost a lot more too. So, companies are understandably a little gun shy about taking on such projects. But the good news is that the government seems to be showing a willingness to step in here as well. In fact, our neighbors right here in Baltimore, Constellation Energy, just announced recently that they had secured a $1 billion loan from the DOE to go towards the restart of Three Mile Island. So, I think that we're seeing that with continued government support we can see some of these projects move forward.

Jackie Fortner

So, maybe we're seeing some of the government support. But earlier you also mentioned labor. So, after such a long period of underinvestment in nuclear power, do we even have the expertise and the people we need for such a big buildout?

Rick de los Reyes

In short, no. Or at least not yet. The DOE estimates that the U.S. would need an additional 375,000 workers to support the deployment of 200GW, which would actually be a tripling of nuclear power by 2050. Now, that number includes 100,000 workers to operate the reactors, and another 275,000 are related to the construction and the manufacturing components for the new reactors. Today, our industry’s labor pool just isn't there. Now, the Trump executive order mentions this as well, although it doesn't necessarily provide a lot of concrete solutions, it just directs the DOE to address the issue.

Jackie Fortner

So, maybe you mentioned the SMRs in development there. Tell us a little bit more about that, because these reactors are what many of the big tech deals are focusing on now.

Rick de los Reyes

Yeah, and there's a reason why SMRs are so appealing, right? I talked about the cost of building Vogtle before. The advantage of SMRs is they’re kind of a mini nuclear reactor. And so the capital cost to build them and the cost to deploy them is significantly lower. And that cost is going to decline even further if we can standardize the technology, which would allow it to be mass produced and produced in a more cost-effective manner.

So, looking around the world today, there's one operating SMR in Russia, there's one that's under construction in China. But over throughout history, there's been over 80 SMR designs in development in 19 different countries. If we go back over the last 70 years, the U.S. has constructed over 50 different commercial reactor designs. What has happened is that the lack of standardization, among other things, has been a key contributor to the ballooning cost for nuclear reactors, and that was what caused cost to escalate, even going back to the 1970s and 1980s. So, but as I mentioned before, the Trump executive order is to direct the energy secretary to speed up the standardization of design and to select a technology –  and select one that is going to be put to use at a U.S. military site. So, we do think that that standardization is important. Standardizing that reactor design is really critical to improving the cost and reducing the lead times for deployment.

Jackie Fortner

So, if Trump's executive order is to be achieved, and if the rest of the world's projected growth in nuclear power also comes to fruition, what then are the potential implications from a natural resources perspective? While technology behind nuclear is still evolving, it's pretty clear that the provision of nuclear power regardless is going to require uranium. So how do we break that down in terms of supply and demand?

Rick de los Reyes

That's a great point, Jackie. And it really gets to the heart of how we're investing, which is mostly through uranium, right? Because as you say, the technology behind nuclear power continues to evolve. So, it's not entirely clear yet who are going to be the winners and losers in SMR design and equipment providers and the engineering construction companies, or even among the power providers, really. But what we do feel confident in is that whatever happens, all of the potential solutions for providing nuclear power are going to require a lot of uranium. And with this renewed momentum behind nuclear power, the world could definitely face a significant deficit in uranium supply. Part of the reason for that is because of the de-emphasis of nuclear power that we've seen over the last ten plus years, right. Particularly since the Fukushima nuclear accident back in 2011. That resulted in a significant underinvestment in uranium mining. And given that building a new uranium mine can take a decade or more, the necessary planning and investment to add that new supply really needs to be happening right now. I also think an important point here, Jackie, is that it's not just about bringing on new capacity, it's about where that capacity is, right? I think the U.S. and its allies are going to want to decrease their dependance upon imports. They're going to want to increase domestic production in order to have security of supply. So right now, the U.S. only produces about 1% of the world's uranium. Now, we expect that to change, right? We think growing production from large, low-cost uranium miners in safe jurisdictions is going to be really key and really important to the U.S. and its allies as they try to continue to meet the growing demand for nuclear power.

Jackie Fortner

So mined uranium does have to be, you know, as you alluded to, it does have to be enriched before being used in power plants. So, will enrichment capacity itself be a problem for some countries?

Rick de los Reyes

Yeah, I think that's a really good point, Jackie. In fact, I think in some ways enrichment is an even a bigger problem, for something like the U.S. to contend with. Currently, Russia and China control nearly 60% of the world's enrichment capacity. And today there's actually only one U.S. uranium enrichment facility, and its capacity can only enrich about a one third of the U.S.'s existing reactor requirements.

So, under the executive order that President Trump put out, he does direct the DOE, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop a plan to expand, domestic conversion and enrichment capacity for uranium. And the orders actually go so far as to call for the use of the Defense Production Act to enter into commercial agreements with domestic suppliers for nuclear fuel supply.

So, I think that given the need for uranium in defense, right, not just in nuclear power, we wouldn't be surprised to see the government seeking to support domestic enrichment in ways not dissimilar to how they're supporting the processing of rare earths – with domestic companies like MP materials and the deal that they announced with that company.

Jackie Fortner

If we step back and maybe go back to the beginning of this conversation, we also talked briefly about how and why the case for nuclear is changing. And part of that appeal for many countries is the low carbon nature of nuclear. So, maybe Maria, can I ask you, how do you see it fitting in as part of this global energy transition movement, alongside other power resources?

Maria Drew

Well, nuclear power, it is a zero carbon, reliable source of baseload power which can help materially lower greenhouse gas emissions from the global power sector. Nuclear can also offer distinct advantages over other sources like wind and solar energy. So, unlike renewables, nuclear doesn't experience the intermittency that those two do from, you know, from weather. If the sun's not shining, you're not going to have solar. If the wind's not blowing, you're not going to have wind power. And nuclear can provide that reliable 24/7 energy generation.

As we think about the outlook for transition, I think nuclear will play a role and it'll be an important one. In countries like China and Korea, where they can actually bring on nuclear capacity at a reasonable cost today, it'll move faster. But for Europe and the U.S., it's probably really like a ten year plus story before we start to see that capacity coming on.

So, in the short term, I think renewables plus grid enforcement remain an important part of the story. If we look at, you know, the cost of power generation in most places in the world, renewables is still at the bottom of the cost curve, and they can be brought on quickly. So, it's probably going to continue to be an attractive source of power generation.

We also think that the extension of coal plants is probably going to be a factor that will probably impede transition a little bit in the short term, but it's really a realistic outcome as we need much more power demand. And in that gap before nuclear can start coming on in scale, that might be part of the story, because it'll be less expensive for the ratepayers.

We've also been a little bit skeptical on the natural gas story, or CGTTs in the U.S. While we expect there'll be quite a few coming on near term, there is a limited ability for them to bring on a whole lot of capacity just because of the availability of turbines. And you have to wonder about kind of the viability of these plants that are coming on into the 2030s and beyond, because at that point, they're going to start competing with nuclear. And also, we know that nuclear will dispatch to the grid first, because once it's actually on stream, it has a low cost of production in getting on the grid.

So, in our view, you know, we think that we'll probably continue to see renewables growth. We're probably going to see some more coal plant extension, and we'll have to see just exactly how much natural gas actually comes on.

Jackie Fortner

So, within nuclear, we know that some of the key challenges are costs and lead times to building new reactors. But what are some of the maybe other non-economic challenges that nuclear faces, particularly on the sustainability side?

Maria Drew

So, I think some of the other key challenges are the waste management side. Also, water use and then public perception issues around safety. So, let's start with the topic of radioactive waste. This is a key concern related to nuclear power as it can remain radioactive for thousands of years. Most countries actually don't have a long-term solution for waste. In fact, a lot of nuclear waste is currently stored on site. So, you know, any nuclear renaissance is probably going to have to have some waste solutions, and that's going to have to come from governments and regulators deciding where to site that. Nuclear power is also extremely water-intensive and water shortages could potentially limit output. So, this is something that we see from time to time, particularly in France when some of the river levels have been very low. So, if nuclear power stations are competing with domestic users for limited sources of fresh water, then, you know, potentially you could see some community opposition. As a result, nuclear reactors are often located close to the coast in order to help mitigate this risk.

Rick de los Reyes

So, Maria, I got to stop you there and ask you about water. And it's interesting that you mentioned nuclear’s impact on water and reactors on the coast. It's something that I've often wondered about. We actually have an operational nuclear plant right here in our backyard in the Chesapeake Bay that discharges water into the bay. Now, the only reason I know that is that I'm an avid fisherman, and during certain times of the year, striped bass will gather around that discharge because the water is warmer than the surrounding bay. So, I've often wondered what the environmental impact of that is. And even more importantly, Maria, can I safely eat the fish that I'm catching there?

Maria Drew

Yeah. Good question. So, the cooling water itself is not radioactive or shouldn't be. So, the water that's used for cooling reactors does not come in contact with the nuclear fuel. So typically, you know, there shouldn't be any harmful radiation there. So, you can keep fishing. Regulatory agencies monitor waters regularly around nuclear power plants. And if contamination was detected, I imagine that they would restrict fishing immediately. Also, the nuclear plants themselves have really strict environmental monitoring programs in place. They should be (and I imagine are) testing the water, and the fish around it and the surrounding ecosystems for radiation. And so, I think that if the levels were to exceed safety limits, you're going to start to see the authorities intervene, and they would stop you from fishing there.

But, Rick, I think your question is a very good one. That highlights sort of the public perception issues around nuclear, and that was going to be the third of the risks that we were talking about. I mean, you're a guy who's got decades of experience in the natural resources space. Yet you still kind of have this question. And nuclear is actually a very safe technology. It has very few accidents compared to other sources of power. But when there is an accident, it's usually a very scary situation. And as a result, you know, there's a bit of a PR problem around nuclear that, you know, even really well-educated people have around it. And I think that's something that the industry is going to have to overcome.

If we look at, kind of the public perception issues around nuclear, there was a period of time where public perception was really quite low in lots of places of the world. And over the past five years, that's really been steadily turning. One area where it was the lowest was Europe and, you know, countries like Italy and Germany that I talked about at the beginning of the podcast. And we've started to see a steady uptick. But I think the industry and governments are going to have to do a lot to reassure the public.

Jackie Fortner

Thanks, Maria. So, you know, you've given us good insight into some of the challenges facing nuclear. And it does sound like, you know, on balance, many would probably classify nuclear energy as a sustainable investment with, you know, some promise – provided that the right safety and regulatory precautions are in place, provided Rick can still have his fish. But now, okay, I'm going to have just one final question for you two before we end the episode. Based on our conversation today, maybe could you guys summarize, let's say, the outlook for energy in just three words? You know, maybe what words would you guys throw out there for our audience today?

Rick de los Reyes

I'm going to go with “accelerating”, “complex”, but also “strategic”.

Maria Drew

I would say, “zero-carbon”, “stable”, “fast-growing”, and “expensive”. Sorry. That was four, Jackie.

Jackie Fortner

I'll let it slide. I'll just do two then. I'll balance this out. But I'm going to say “potential”, but also maybe “divisive”.

You know, that brings our episode to a close for today. And I want to thank you both Rick and Maria for your time, for your expertise. It was really a fascinating discussion. You know, we talked about how nuclear energy is reemerging as a critical component of many countries’ you know, security plans. But maybe why the planning and investment to add new uranium supply needs to be happening now, if this is going to be part of the way forward. And while, you know, a lot of challenges that you outlined do remain, scaling up nuclear power is no doubt going to be costly, it could take some time as governments try to overcome these hurdles. But based on, you know, what we've heard today, it does seem like this is a solution that could have promise in the future.

This also wraps up our season ‘Powering Tomorrow: Defining the Future of Energy’. So, thank you again to our listeners for tuning in to “The Angle”. We look forward to your company on future seasons. And in the meanwhile, you can find more information about this and other topics on our website. Please rate and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. “The Angle,” better questions, better insights, only from T. Rowe Price.

Disclosure

This podcast episode was recorded in November of 2025 and is for general information and educational purposes only. Outside of the United States, it is for investment professional use only. It is not intended to be used by persons and jurisdictions which prohibit or restrict distribution of the material herein. This podcast does not give advice or recommendations of any nature or constitute an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any security in any jurisdiction.

Prospective investors should seek independent legal, financial, and tax advice before making any investment decision. Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future performance. All investments are subject to risk, including the possible loss of principal. Discussions relating to specific securities are informational only and are not recommendations and may or may not have been held in any T. Rowe Price portfolio.

There should be no assumptions that the securities were or will be profitable. T. Rowe Price is not affiliated with any companies discussed. The views contained herein are of the speakers as of the date of the recording and are subject to change without notice. These views may differ from those of other T. Rowe Price associates and/or affiliates. Information is from sources deemed reliable but not guaranteed.

The source for the statement that since the early 1990s, we've had just six gigawatts of capacity added across five reactors, is the U.S. Department of Energy, with data analysis by T. Rowe Price.

The sources for the statement that the U.S. only produces about 1% of the world's uranium are the Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency: Uranium 2024 Resources Report.

The source for the statement that the world could definitely face a significant deficit in uranium supply is the Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research. Data analysis by T. Rowe Price.

Please visit http://www.troweprice.com/theanglepodcast for full global issuer disclosures.

This podcast is copyright by T. Rowe Price 2026.

ID0008581

202602- 4905803