Aired Aug 18, 2026 · 28 min

Listen on: YouTube · Spotify · Apple Podcasts

Nuclear energy is making headlines declaring its comeback. But did nuclear ever really go away?

In this episode, Matt Chester unpacks what’s behind nuclear’s renewed moment in the spotlight. He traces the industry from its massive buildout in the 20th century through Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and explores the role nuclear has quietly continued to play on the U.S. grid.

He also digs into what’s changing now: AI and data centers are driving unprecedented electricity demand, policymakers are reconsidering nuclear retirements, and emerging technologies like small modular reactors (SMRs) are promising new ways to deploy nuclear power.

Watch now to learn what’s behind nuclear’s comeback, what utilities need to know about public perception, and what’s to come in the next decade.

Anu: If you asked me what nuclear energy meant when I was a kid, I would describe it as the job that Homer Simpson did on The Simpsons. But if you ask me as an adult who's new to covering the energy space what nuclear is, I would describe it as the thing that's taking over headlines and my social media feed in recent months. So I thought it's safe to conclude that nuclear energy is back, right? After all, the U.S. Department of Energy did just publish a few days ago that the golden era of American nuclear energy has arrived. Forbes said the AI boom is making nuclear power bankable again.

And the Wall Street Journal said the public backs nuclear now. With every hyperscaler like Meta and Microsoft getting into investing into nuclear, it's safe to conclude that it's back. Well, according to Energy Central's Matt Chester, nuclear isn't making a comeback because to those who are in the industry or those who chime in online at Energy Central, nuclear was never gone. So if nuclear has been around for decades, why am I suddenly seeing all these headlines about nuclear energy making a comeback? By the way, if you're listening to this on YouTube, please make sure to subscribe to our channel and like this video. If nuclear power isn't back, why am I hearing about it everywhere as if it is?

Matt Chester: It's a great question. And I think to really get into it, we'd have to go back over a brief history of nuclear energy and going all the way back, tapping into the immense power atoms that are capable of nuclear energy and what we know about that today. It goes back to the Manhattan Project. And this is the entire story that's been well chronicled. Movies like Oppenheimer and other places people might be familiar. For better or worse, we see the trope where technology is ultimately driven by the military, by war, by weaponry.

But after scientists unlocked the chain reactions that nuclear made possible with the bomb of it all, nuclear tech then fed into the more optimistic post-war feeling, which was peaceful means and realizing that that same science and that same technology could create nuclear power, a new energy source. And we think of nuclear power today a lot about how it's carbon neutral, and that's one of its main benefits. But back then, people weren't really worried about emissions of energy sources. But what they saw was nuclear energy as a potential source of abundant, cheap energy. And that was the real driving force. So from that time of the post-war period through really, the 1980s, we saw a massive build out of nuclear power plants.

The oldest operating power plant was built in 1969. So that highlights how, you know, one of the hallmarks of nuclear plants is that it takes a while to build and especially early on when it was still new. That plant from 1969, it's still in operation today, which is pretty remarkable. But even if you look at the landscape of U.S. nuclear power plants today, most of them were built between 1970 and 1990. And that two decades still represents 92 out of the 98 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity that's on the grid today.

It was a big period of nuclear boom then that that was, you know. Obviously, we weren't around during that time, but I'm sure if you tuned into the news, you'd hear it all over the place, kind of what you were saying. People was hearing it all the time. And again, the fervor around it was for a number of reasons. One is that nuclear power was and still is kind of an always on, always available power source. It has a capacity factor above 90%, which means literally 90% of the time a nuclear power plant is generating power.

And a lot of that is 24-7. It's not 90% of the day. It's going constantly with that 10% being when it's shut down for maintenance or refueling or things like that. And to put that into perspective, that 90% capacity factor, the next closest power source is geothermal at 65%. And then when we go to other sources that are considered baseload power sources, like nuclear, as we look at natural gas, it hovers around 60%. Coal is around 43%.

So a nuclear power plant really is the closest thing we have to an always-on power source. And that's what made it really attractive and continues to make it really attractive today. And then in terms of abundance, you know, we have enough uranium today that would last us for nearly a century at the current consumption rates. And there's been a lot of work recently about things like advanced recycling and extracting uranium from the ocean and all these new sources that, you know, the experts say, well, if we did that, all of a sudden that century of uranium turns into thousands of years of it. So there's no such thing as an endless abundant energy source, but it seems like nuclear is as close as we have to that, which also makes it extremely affordable once the power plant is up and running. So all of that is kind of the background, which is why nuclear power became such an important source of energy over the 20th century.

Anu: Yeah. Okay, so what I'm gathering for what you're saying is there was a lot of enthusiasm and excitement about this technology. So what happened? Where did that enthusiasm go?

Matt Chester: I'd say two things happened. One is that enthusiasm for a new technology, once it becomes commonplace, it's no longer enthusiasm. It's just, well, that is what it is. The other elephant in the room, the road bump, if you will, is some of the unfortunate events that still today represent knee-jerk word associations with nuclear power. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. These were... pretty notable disasters where something went wrong with nuclear power plants. And they highlighted the worst case scenario and elevated a public's concerns about safety and about radiation and turned those from a hypothetical what could go wrong to, hey, look, something did go wrong. And that's really scary.

Anu: Yeah. So for our younger audience, Three Mile Island occurred in 1979. It released radioactive gases and radioactive iodine into the environment. And Chernobyl happened a little bit later in 1986. It was often called the worst nuclear power plant accident in history caused by a flawed reactor design and a human error. So those are pretty big, notable events.

Matt Chester: Absolutely. And, you know, you definitely don't want to just skip over them and pretend that they weren't a big deal. They really were. Like I said, it was a representative, the worst case scenario and made the public sentiment, you know, not so so warm on nuclear power. It was, well, is this something we need? Is this a risk that anybody who has a nuclear power plant in their backyard, they're they're living with that now?

And especially when it comes to examining radiation impacts on people and the environment in the wake of these events, there became a tension from needing to be cautious in the aftermath of what those potential damages were to how long it actually really took to study and learn, well, what were those real impacts? And we can say now with hindsight, a lot of the biggest concerns about what those radiation impacts were, they weren't as severe as the initial panic made it feel like. And some of the examples we have is, you know, if you take a tour around the site of Chernobyl today, it'll expose you to less radiation than the round-trip flight that would take you there. Or, you know, nuclear proponents always like to point out, you know, silly ones, like you get more exposure to radiation from eating a banana than you do living near a nuclear power plant. So we have the data points and the science behind that now, but all the same, those initial thoughts of people who lived through those disasters, it's really challenging to overcome that kind of association and that kind of fear. So you tack onto that also a trend more recently of new nuclear power plants being really expensive.

And some of the ones that have been built in the 21st century, they got hit with long construction schedules, cost overruns, even once they were approved. And so those combined to make the enthusiasm among the general public a little bit more tempered. And in that meantime, we see alternatives grow. So, you know, cheap natural gas that can replace the baseload generation that nuclear power seemed to be the only thing to do. That changes the equation, as do the renewable energy surge that sees another way to meet carbon neutral generation with low or no fuel costs. So, you know, there's these other power sources that can suddenly do.

In piecemeal, a lot of what nuclear power could do, combine that with the fears, it's like, well, why are we going to go all in on nuclear is a lot of the understandable pushback. And then, of course, you know, those alternative power sources, they have their own challenges. Natural gas plants, they have the emissions. Renewables, they're not 24-7. You know, you can't get solar when the sun isn't shining, for example. You know, they have their own challenges, but what those sources don't have is this immediate public perception that's tied to a massive disaster and a danger. And so it makes it really challenging.

Anu: For sure. I mean, these public disasters likely change the perception of nuclear for so many people, including myself and many people who are not in the energy industry. So I'm curious. That's kind of when nuclear died, right? And these plants stopped being built. I'm assuming the ones that existed also stopped operating.

Matt Chester: All these slowdown factors combined to put the U.S. nuclear sector in a place where new plants weren't being built at that same clip that they were during the 70s and the 80s. But they didn't completely stop. At least one plant came online each year of the 80s. But then only three were built over the course of the entire decade of the 90s. For those outside of the energy sector who are just checking in on headlines, you know, they're not living this.

They're just occasionally hearing about it. That building slowdown meant for them the nuclear question went away. But that's not reality because one of the inherent benefits of a nuclear plant is... that they operate for many decades consistently and safely. And so it means that those power plants that were built through the 80s, they continued and continue today to generate enormous amounts of power for decades to come. There's no headline in, yep, that power plant that we built 20 years ago, still generating. So you're not seeing as many headlines tied to, here comes a new power plant to get excited about.

Anu: Right. That's really interesting, Matt, that those continue to still operate. I guess when you hear about careers that young people pick in the energy industry today, you don't often come across people saying they're going to work at a nuclear power plant. So I haven't had the chance to meet someone and ask what they do. I'm curious, what has nuclear meant to the grid in recent years?

Matt Chester: What I'll say is that nuclear has never stopped mattering and a great deal at that. And and coming from an engineering background myself, you know, I definitely did see some of my classmates end up in the nuclear sector. But it is fair to say that maybe it's lost some of its cachet and, you know, the clean energy sector, the renewables is kind of the sexier place for people to go. But if we want to put some raw numbers behind it, you know, about 17 percent of the U.S. grid today is powered by nuclear and it's held between 17 and about 21 percent for every year since the turn of the century. And it's only recently that the collective renewables have caught up to nuclear in terms of.

Total generation, all renewables combined in 2001 at 8% of the grid, mostly from hydroelectric power. And, you know, starting from that point in 2001, that all the way to the first year where the collective renewables outpaced nuclear was 2020, when nuclear supplied about 19% renewables past the 20% threshold. And then today in our current grid, again, we're looking at nuclear at about 17% to renewables combining for 26%. So just putting some data points behind there that, again, nuclear has never gone away. It's always been a really important chunk of the grid mix. And again, the benefit of nuclear is that it can generate that carbon-free energy on a 24-7 basis compared with renewables, which are more intermittent.

And then you have to have a lot more planning and do you have backup batteries? And what are you doing about things like the the duck curve? And, you know, you can get into really wonky topics like that. But nuclear just has that really high capacity factor and it can run continuously. You know, a single plant can run without stopping for up to two years at a time.

Anu: Wow. I mean, for those of us who aren't checking these numbers or keeping up with nuclear energy, this can all seem pretty invisible.

Matt Chester: Yeah, and I would argue that that invisibility is almost an asset. It's the reliable source that's always running in the background. We're not seeing dramatic yearly nuclear capacity additions like we are with all the new solar, all the new wind being added to the grid. You know, similar compared to natural gas as well, where, you know, the past 20 years we've seen the revolution in shale gas, which is really upped the the fervor for how much gas can add to the power grid. But through it all, again, nuclear, you can think of it as that old reliable worker. They show up every day. They do their job well, but they're not making noise about it. But, you know, you really rely on them.

Anu: For sure. When you said a reliable worker, I thought of Homer Simpson again. And you checked into work every day with Lenny and Carl. So I'm seeing some comparisons there. So for those who have been keeping up with the sector, what kind of developments are they looking at that the rest of us aren't paying attention to?

Matt Chester: Yeah, so people who are paying attention and really keyed into nuclear these days, there are regular developments that, frankly, they might seem mundane and even a little boring, but they're critical. So you have license extensions that are keeping those decades-old power plants operating longer than originally planned. When you put that nuclear plant up in 1980 and said, hey, here's a 30-year license to run, maybe we didn't yet know that like actually after those 30 years, things are looking good. Let's let's tack on another 10, 20, 30 years. So so those are happening pretty regularly. We're seeing a good amount of investment all the time in even more safety improvements in modernization of the technology designed to keep the plants running.

And, you know, those aren't the most sexy or visible to the public. So no one's really talking about it. But again, it highlights, you know, an important adage that, you know, you kind of alluded to that. Good infrastructure, it's meant to be invisible until something changes. If something goes wrong, okay, then it's not invisible. If something new is happening, that's not invisible. But when it's just operating smoothly in the background, invisibility is pretty good.

Anu: Yeah, so let's go back to that question that I asked in the beginning of this episode. If all of this has been around for decades, just existing silently in the periphery for only those who are actually paying attention to it, then why am I seeing headlines about it being back? Why did the US DOE call this the golden age? Why am I seeing tech billionaires talking about nuclear energy being back? And of course, every hyperscaler is spending billions of dollars on nuclear. So it seems like something new is definitely happening that hasn't happened before. What's going on? And if I had to guess, I'd say it has something to do with the AI boom.

Matt Chester: Yeah, that's a pretty great guess. And I'm here to tell you that we do have some new developments happening today, and they are likely why you're seeing that nuclear is back trope, even though hopefully I've convinced you that, again, it never really went away. So first, yes, data centers, they're changing the conversation, not just in nuclear, but really in everything energy and utilities. They're the biggest source of new load growth that we've seen maybe since, you know, air conditioning became, you know, regular in every building. So, so AI and data centers, they're, they're the big energy topic, making headlines for both insiders and for the non-energy people out there because of just how much they're putting pressure on the grid with their new loads. And, you know, so again, put some contextual numbers.

Recent estimates say that data centers are responsible today for about 4% of U.S. electricity. And there's forecasts that that could readily grow to 12% by 2028. So we are talking about some serious power needs here. These data centers are making even more valuable large generation sources that are reliable, available 24 seven. So you're seeing tech companies really lean into what nuclear can do.

They might see the headlines from renewables and they get good PR from that. But if you're one of those big tech companies, you want that power on 24 seven. So that's why we're seeing things like Amazon investing over $500 million in a deal to get gigawatts of nuclear power in Pennsylvania. We're seeing Google investing in some advanced nuclear capacity that they can hope get started up by the next decade. Meta recently closed on an RFP for nuclear to meet their needs. And then Microsoft even signed a deal to help restart Three Mile Island, the maligned site that we mentioned earlier. So yeah, there's a lot of tech focus on nuclear.

Anu: Right. I mean, even as someone who's new to covering the energy industry, I did think data centers were a huge part of why we're seeing the nuclear comeback. What else is happening?

Matt Chester: Yeah. Yeah. And it's fair. It's not just the data centers. We're also seeing existing nuclear power plants become more in focus as political leaders look to answer some big energy questions. They're being asked why energy costs are going up, how we're going to meet power loads.

And, you know, plants that were previously pegged for retirement are now being extended. We saw that happen with Diablo Canyon in California. Also, states that have set ambitious emission reduction targets are now really understanding how valuable nuclear power can be to that. And so, you know, they're codifying their emission targets can be met by more than just renewables, but allowing nuclear to count towards those clean energy targets. That's been formally done in a bunch of states like Michigan and Illinois and Minnesota. And then we did, in fact, see the first new nuclear power plant added to the grid in a couple of years ago in Georgia.

The Vogtle plant added over two gigawatts when it came online over 2023 and 2024. That represented the first new nuclear added to the grid since 2016. So it was a big deal. And again, it got a lot of criticism because it went way over budget, way past schedule. Those are all, you know, important points that would be worth digging into. But in the end, two gigawatts added to the Georgian grid.

That's huge. Not to mention, we've seen reactor restarts, where previously shut down plants were then restarted to help meet demand. We saw that with the Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan.

Anu: I read recently that Microsoft is heavily investing in nuclear energy. But when I read these stories, they mention something called a small modular reactor or an SMR for short. And that term threw me off a bit. So could you tell me what is that? Why is it small? And is that different from the type of nuclear that we've been talking about in this episode?

Matt Chester: Yeah, so SMRs, they are really kind of the sexy topic in nuclear these days. And really, they are just smaller versions of today's nuclear power plants. They work on the same scientific principles. They create the same energy. But what it really means is instead of building one massive facility on site over many years and then run into budget and scheduling issues like that Georgian plant saw, SMRs are designed to be factory built, shipped to where they're needed and then readily and quickly assembled.

So that smaller size, it makes them attractive for powering smaller communities, industrial sites, data centers, or simply leading into the principle of generating the electrons automatically closer to where that power is ultimately needed rather than the traditional model has been central generation, where we then send it over the grid hundreds of miles. So in essence, the idea is to make nuclear energy more flexible, scalable, ultimately less expensive on a case by case basis to deploy. And it's it is it's changing what we think is possible about nuclear power. That said, it is still sort of early on. You know, SMRs have caught a lot of attention.

There's been a lot of headlines. But we're still caught in that perpetual cycle of, all right, we're just a few years away, and then it's going to change things. It's almost our latest space race where there's companies in a bunch of different countries who are trying to be the first ones to get these commercialized and on the grid. At this point, we're still looking at maybe the end of this decade before actually having them connect to the U.S. grid. But once they do it, it will be a game changer for sure. And then looking more further into the future, you know, in terms of technologies that are there's excitement behind. We regularly see headlines about, you know, this new breakthrough happened in nuclear fusion and nuclear fusion really is that holy grail in the power system.

Anu: Okay, I remember nuclear fusion from my intro to physics classes in high school and college. It's basically when two tiny atoms crash together at crazy high speeds and fuse into one, releasing a massive explosion of energy. Where are we heading with that?

Matt Chester: Once we get to this kind of future technology, I'll give the full disclosure. I'm not a nuclear scientist, so I'll lean on the experts here. But the way DOE breaks it down is fission, which is the commonly the common use of nuclear power today, is when a neutron slams into a larger atom, forcing it to excite and split into two smaller atoms, also known as fission products. When each of those atoms splits, a tremendous amount of energy is released. And that's, again, what all nuclear power is based on today. Fusion, rather than fission, fusion is when two atoms, like you said, slam together to then form a heavier atom.

Like when two hydrogen atoms fuse to form one helium atom. It's the principle that creates the sun's energy. It's multiples more powerful than fission, which is used today. And it does so without any radioactive byproducts. So all that combines to make it as valuable as it is. But it's safe to say that we're still in the research, exploration, and discovery phases there.

Any of the headlines that you see highlighting breakthroughs, they're exciting. And I'll often get family members texting them to me like, oh my gosh, this happened. It is exciting, but they do us a disservice if they make it seem like fusion is just around the corner. We saw a headline the other day about Commonwealth Fusion Systems raising another billion dollar investment round, bringing their their total funding to four billion dollars. People are excited. It is that holy grail.

And the moment fusion becomes cracked, economical, commercially available. Everything we know about the energy conversation today will be greatly upended. But I just caution that despite those headlines, we're decades away from actualization there. But every baby step that makes a headline gets people excited. Once again, feeds into that nuclear is back or nuclear to the future conversation that may have waned in the time since that last major development. So people are starved for that excitement, for those stories. And who knows, one day we will be having that real conversation. As we talk about what's happening in the past with nuclear, where we are today, and some of these future developments, the question I have for you, Anu, is, does this conversation change anything for you about how you're perceiving nuclear?

Anu: Well, from our conversation, it sounds like nuclear is making headlines again for reasons related to the AI boom and policy as well, because this has been an option for decades. And I guess the challenge is public perception. When some may see it as a promising technology moving forward. That's at least according to Pew Research that showed that last year, 60 percent of U.S. adults say they favor more nuclear power plants. And this is up from 43 percent in 2020.

I guess one reason could be that because those who are most impacted by Chernobyl and Three Mile have aged and the younger generation may not associate nuclear with those disasters. That said, there's still skepticism out there. And what this episode leads me to ask is, how do we address the skepticism? Is it something that we even need to address? Or can we stay optimistic about it because it has been running safely and quietly in the background for all these decades?

Matt Chester: In a lot of ways, some of the biggest questions about nuclear aren't necessarily technological. The technology has been working. It's great. But the biggest questions are cultural and storytelling. Is the public becoming more open to nuclear? Is that because of climate concerns, energy security, the growing power demand?

Are, like you suggested, maybe the memories of those past accidents becoming more of a distant memory? So even if your average non-industry person has more openness and even enthusiasm about nuclear, there still are public perception challenges. And there remain people who look at it through the lens of The Simpsons, through the Cold War threats or various documentaries on Chernobyl. And those people, they're understandably going to be hesitant or outright resistant and persistent.

Anu: That makes sense.

Matt Chester: And the solution there isn't necessarily, well, we need new technology. The aim is instead to get them to understand the current state of technology, to make it feel as safe as it is, and to get them to perceive nuclear instead of through the Simpsons or the Cold War, through the lens of... hey, here's a reliable, affordable and carbon free energy. And that is a game changer. And we do have the safety protocols in place and we do know what we're doing here. So I think that that's sort of the storytelling storytelling element of it all.

Anu: So if someone listening reads another nuclear is back headline, how should they feel? Should they be worried, excited, hopeful, maybe a mix of those feelings?

Matt Chester: I'd say the overall advice of really any media literacy applies here, which is read past the headline. You know, overall, there are developments that are exciting, but I would step back and reframe the questions we're talking about and say, has nuclear changed or has the world around nuclear change? And I think the answer there is a bit of both. Be sure to, you know, when you see that headline, you know, remember the numbers we were talking about earlier about how much nuclear is contributing to the grid, how it's doing so safely, how, you know, all these exciting things that are coming forward, but where we also need to, you know, be patient and wait for some of those developments to play out.

Anu: For sure. And I guess one final takeaway for utilities, what should they be getting out of listening to this episode? What would be your big takeaway for them?

Matt Chester: Yeah. So some of the world is still caught up of understanding nuclear in the way they have in the past. And I think it's important to recognize that, acknowledge it and empathize with it. You know, that's going to be a lot more powerful than trying to override them or steamroll them, but tell them the story of nuclear highlight the value and safety of the energy source today. And that needs to be constantly front of front of mind. That's again, the storytelling journey that's necessary there.

If you're going to a town hall, don't just, you know, try to say, no, you're wrong. Engage with them, understand the concerns, but then meet them with data, meet them with facts. And, you know, you can't just assume that the caricatures of nuclear energy from Homer Simpson have been fully replaced for the average person. It might feel that way for the energy wonk. So we all know that this is how nuclear works and this is why it's so great. But for the people who are concerned or cautious, engage them, think about ways to address their concerns. Think about where compromise can be found.

Anu: For the utilities, it's important to remember the general public might not have the same understanding of nuclear as you. Some of the world is still caught of their understanding of nuclear from the past. But, you know, don't just try to override or steamroll that. Tell them the story of nuclear. Highlight the value and the safety of the energy source today. Keep that front of mind. You can't just assume that those Homer Simpson caricatures have been fully replaced for the average person. So engage the public in that way.

Thank you so much for watching. If you've made it to the end, make sure to subscribe, like this video, and leave us a comment that you made it to the end of the video. We'll see you again next week.