💵 Nuclear Finance, Plain-English

Beyond engineering, nuclear projects live or die by financing. This post breaks down the economics: construction costs, PPAs, government guarantees, and why FOAK projects often stumble.

📅 Cornerstone Post

📖 ~15–18 min read

TL;DR

• Nuclear projects fail more often because of money than because of physics.

• Construction costs, financing structures, PPAs, and government guarantees dictate whether a reactor gets built.

• First-of-a-kind (FOAK) projects almost always stumble—because risk, delay, and financing costs compound.

• Without financial credibility, no amount of technical innovation will matter.

---

Why Nuclear Finance Is So Difficult

Unlike solar or gas plants, nuclear projects are:

• Capital-intensive: $6–12 billion for a large plant; even SMRs are hundreds of millions each.

• Long-lived: 40–80 years of operating horizon.

• Long-to-build: 7–10 years of construction (if not delayed).

• Risk-sensitive: A single misstep can derail financing for an entire class of projects.

This means financing nuclear is more like financing an airport or dam than a typical power plant.

---

The Building Blocks of Nuclear Finance

1. Construction Costs

• Large Reactors: AP1000, EPR, and other gigawatt-scale units often exceed $8–12 billion.

• Small Modular Reactors (SMRs): Promised at $300–600 million per unit, but real costs remain to be proven.

• Cost drivers: supply chain, labor productivity, regulatory delays, financing costs (interest rates).

---

2. Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs)

• PPAs are long-term contracts that guarantee revenue by locking in a price per megawatt-hour.

• Without a PPA (or equivalent guaranteed offtake), banks will not finance nuclear.

• Challenge: Nuclear’s levelized cost (often $90–120/MWh) competes against cheaper renewables and gas.

• Example: SMR developers are actively courting data centers, utilities, and government agencies to sign PPAs.

---

3. Government Guarantees

• U.S. DOE Loan Programs Office provides loan guarantees (e.g., for Vogtle expansion).

• Internationally, governments often own or heavily back projects (e.g., China, Russia, France).

• Without sovereign guarantees, private financing is nearly impossible at nuclear’s scale.

• Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) adds tax credits for advanced reactors—critical for future SMRs.

---

4. First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) Risk

• FOAK = “First project of its kind.”

• Always more expensive and delayed than promised.

• Investors know this, so FOAK projects are treated as demos, not commercial deployments.

• Successive projects can drop cost by 20–30% (learning curve), but only if the first gets built.

• History: Vogtle (USA), Olkiluoto (Finland), Flamanville (France) all demonstrate FOAK pain.

---

Why FOAK Projects Stumble

• Schedule risk: Every month of delay burns millions in interest.

• Change orders: Constant design revisions inflate cost.

• Supply chain gaps: Components become bottlenecks.

• Investor flight: Once overruns mount, financiers retreat, leaving governments to cover losses.

FOAK projects are therefore less about economics and more about political will.

---

What Financial Credibility Looks Like

For nuclear to be bankable:

1. Standardized designs → minimize FOAK surprises.

2. Repeat builds → learning curve reduces cost per unit.

3. Clear offtake contracts (PPAs) → guaranteed revenue.

4. Government backing → sovereign guarantees, tax credits, and risk sharing.

5. Strong project governance → no tolerance for “normalization of deviance” in budgets or schedules.

---

Why This Matters

• Industry: If you can’t explain the financing, you can’t sell the project.

• Policymakers: Want nuclear? You must align subsidies, PPAs, and guarantees.

• Public: Understand why costs balloon and why taxpayers end up carrying the risk.

---

What to Watch Next

• 💸 DOE loan guarantees for SMR demonstration projects.

• 📑 Early PPAs between SMR vendors and data centers/utilities.

• 🏗️ Cost curves: Will FOAK SMRs replicate the overruns of large plants—or break the cycle?

• 🌐 International competition: China and Russia export reactors with state-backed financing packages that Western vendors can’t easily match.

---

Closing Thought

Nuclear is an economic paradox: its fuel is cheap, but its plants are expensive. Success depends not just on physics or engineering, but on financial credibility. Without PPAs, guarantees, and standardized builds, nuclear’s renaissance will remain aspirational.

---

🔗 This concludes the Start Here series: [Back to Waste 101] | [NRC 101] | [SMRs: Hype vs. Hard Edges] | [Safety Culture 101]

📩 Subscribe Free for cornerstone posts delivered to your inbox.

🚀 Upgrade to Paid for access to the NIC Scorecard on Nuclear Finance, sample project cost models, and member-only briefings.