As the United States confronts surging electricity demand — nearly a 25% increase by 2030 — from electrification, artificial intelligence, and climate targets, nuclear power is re-emerging as a central, albeit deeply contested, pillar of the nation’s energy strategy.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States is experiencing its strongest four-year energy demand growth period since 2000. Lawmakers from both political parties, federal agencies, and major utilities are signaling renewed support for new nuclear construction, even as questions of cost, timelines, waste management, and public opposition go unanswered.

Donna Attanasio, managing director of the George Washington University Alliance for a Sustainable Future (ASF), is an expert and lawyer in the energy sector. Attanasio brings decades of experience navigating the intersection of federal regulation, utility economics, and energy infrastructure development to her position at the ASF. While addressing the legal, political, and economic factors of nuclear power, Attanasio discusses whether the United States is in the midst of a nuclear power renaissance.

The interview below has been edited for length and clarity.

Isabella Marias: Historically, many U.S. nuclear projects were years late and cost more than double their original estimates. Given that legacy, what do utilities and investors see as the business case for new nuclear?

Donna Attanasio: When we look at where we are today, we have this unprecedented growth in demand for electricity, and it’s really important to understand that the system has to work as a whole. Any way in which you produce energy has some environmental impact. So we look at nuclear, which, from an environmental perspective, doesn’t look bad compared to our other alternatives. 

The business and finance case now is, one, there’s need, and two, we know better, and hopefully this time, we’ll do it better.

IM: With recent federal grants and private funding efforts, is the financial risk of nuclear power lowering or, rather, shifting around?

DA: I think it’s being shifted to the people who are most willing to take it. Typically, the customer always ends up paying ultimately. Nuclear is weird because it has such a long life that most people, when you do project financing, they’re looking at a life of 10–15 years. The value on the out-years gets smaller and smaller. That has made it very difficult in the past for bringing in private equity. You have people, like data companies, that are willing to say, “Look, this is so valuable to me. I’m willing to pay more upfront. I’m willing to put money at risk.”

IM: We’ll move on to the policy side of things. The Department of Energy is encouraging nuclear lifecycle campuses — sites designed for the entire process of nuclear power development — as part of an effort to expand nuclear power. How meaningful is this encouragement from a policy standpoint?

DA: I think there’s two pieces to that. One is the government role, which is really important. Number two is this idea of the lifecycle campuses and being able to control the waste right on site. Waste has been a huge stumbling block in the past. I think that aspect of a campus where everything is contained is really important, but the government support is also critically important.

I think [Stephen Burns] said “nuclear has been regulated since birth.” It came into this country as part of a weapons program. There’s a lot of myth around nuclear that makes it harder for the public to digest it. The fact that you have the government stepping in is really critically important, because we do have a big hurdle to overcome here.

IM: This hurdle comes from funding as well as public perception. “Nuclear” can be a trigger word for the public as far as its use in the past. Do you think initiatives like these are powerful enough to overcome these longstanding challenges, or is there also an element of changing public perception?

DA: We do have to change public perception, but public perception is actually changing a little bit. When we first started doing nuclear, we weren’t doing it very well. They’ve become extremely good performers, relatively low cost once they’re up and operating, and you’re spreading out their value over all those years. People are perhaps understanding a little bit more about what value they can have as part of the system. But I don’t think it’s any one of these things. It’s government policy, financing, public perception, and new technologies.

IM: Many experts, like the International Atomic Energy Agency, highlight the shortage of workers for these projects. How big a constraint is this to the financing of these projects?

DA: This issue about the shortage is big. It’s not just nuclear. The entire electric industry is short of workers. There’s an intense curve here that needs to be met in terms of educating people to be able to step into these roles and to enhance the workforce. So, yes, I think it’s going to have an impact, not just on the financing, but on the ability for everything to move forward.

IM: Yeah, that was my next point. How big a constraint is this to policy?

DA: This really should be a private sector problem, in the sense that if there are jobs out there that pay well, why aren’t people flocking to get them? Part of it is training. I think that the workforce needs more education about where these jobs are, so that they get to them. 

Not all universities that offer engineering programs have power systems engineering or nuclear engineering. I do think that we’ll probably see some programs expanding. As it makes more and more headlines, you will see educational institutions stepping up and hopefully the word getting down to the folks coming through.

IM: Would you, with your knowledge of the arena, characterize this present moment as a nuclear power renaissance?

DA: I do think so, but I do think part of it is because we actually do have new technologies now. We’ve started and stopped and started and stopped often enough. There’s still some hurdles out there, but I do think that we are at a moment now where we’re going to figure this out.