Maybe I'm Wrong (about nuclear)

If so, I've got a lot of company

It’s a good thing to question oneself. There’s a lot of people from the CEO¹ to reddit who believe solar + batteries are the future and nuclear’s day is over. This is a lot of smart people. So am I wrong?

Rather than running the numbers again, I figured better to see who is building nuclear. Because that’s putting a country’s future and money on the line. So who, based on their actions, is going all in on nuclear?

Well… a bunch of countries, and even some U.S. states, are betting big on nuclear. Not because it’s sexy, but because it’s the only thing that can keep the lights on 24/7 without choking the planet. Let’s take a walk through who’s building what, who’s rewriting laws to make it happen, and why they think nuclear’s the better bet over solar panels and batteries.

Countries Going All-In on Nuclear

Some nations are treating nuclear like it’s the last lifeboat on the Titanic. They’re building reactors, planning more, and banking on nuclear to handle the heavy lifting of their energy grids - specifically, the “baseload” power that keeps hospitals, factories, and your Netflix binge running when the sun’s down and the wind’s not blowing. Here’s a rundown of the big players.²

• China: They’re building 25 reactors right now, with 44 more in the pipeline. By 2035, they want nuclear to cover about 15% of their baseload, up from 5% today. Meanwhile, they’re throwing solar panels everywhere, 200 GW added in 2023 alone, and using batteries to smooth out the grid. But solar’s intermittent, so nuclear’s their rock.

• India: Seven reactors under construction, 14 planned. They’re aiming for 10% of baseload from nuclear by 2040. Solar’s huge (targeting 280 GW by 2030),³ but they’re leaning on nuclear for steady power in cities. Batteries are mostly for rural areas.

• Russia: Four reactors being built, 22 planned. They want 20% of baseload from nuclear by 2035. Solar’s not their thing, and batteries are barely on the radar, nuclear’s their geopolitical flex.

• South Korea: Three reactors under construction, six planned. They’re gunning for 30% of baseload by 2030. Solar’s growing (78 GW by 2030), and they’re investing in batteries, but nuclear’s their backbone.

• Turkey: Four reactors at Akkuyu, eight more planned. They’re new to the game but want 10% baseload by 2035. Solar’s ramping up (53 GW by 2035), with batteries as a sidekick.

Other countries like Egypt (1 under construction, 3 planned), Bangladesh (2 under construction), and the UAE (1 planned) are also jumping in, but they’re smaller players. The trend’s clear: Asia’s leading the charge, with nuclear as the reliable anchor for growing energy needs.

Countries Rewriting the Rulebook

Some nations have done a 180 on nuclear, changing laws or policies to greenlight new reactors or soften anti-nuclear stances. Here’s who’s making moves:

• Japan: After Fukushima scared them off, Japan passed a 2023 law letting reactors run longer (up to 60+ years) and encouraging new builds. They’re restarting idle plants and planning new ones to hit 20% baseload by 2030.

• France: They flipped from cutting nuclear to planning six new reactors and 12 SMRs. Nuclear already covers 70% of their electricity, and they want to keep it that way.

• Poland: In 2022, they approved their first nuclear plant using three AP-1000 reactors, with APR-1400 units and SMRs in the works. They’re aiming for 15% baseload by 2040.

• Belgium: They extended two reactors’ lives to 2035, covering 15% of electricity. New builds are under discussion.

• Denmark: In May 2025, Denmark’s parliament voted 102–8 to repeal a 40-year ban on nuclear power, a huge shift for a country that gets over 80% of its electricity from wind and solar. Why the change? Their renewables-heavy grid is wobbly—last month’s blackout in Spain showed what happens when wind and solar lack backup. Denmark’s also tired of importing power (20 TWh in 2024) from Norway’s hydro and Sweden’s nuclear, especially with electricity prices at €0.38/kWh.
  In other words, while we (Colorado) are trying to emulate the Denmark of today, Denmark has FAFO and is now going for nuclear.

• Germany: Germany hasn’t restarted its reactors or built new ones - its last three shut down in 2023 - but in May 2025, they made waves by agreeing not to block nuclear energy in EU legislation. This is a big deal for a country that banned nuclear in 2022 and leaned hard into renewables. With their economy shrinking (0.2% in 2024) and businesses fleeing high energy costs, Germany’s getting pragmatic.
  Once again, we (Colorado) are trying to emulate the Germany of today - which will lead to high energy costs and business fleeing to other states.

Nuclear Power Plant in Japan

These countries aren’t just tweaking laws—they’re betting nuclear’s worth the hassle because it’s reliable and carbon-free. Denmark and Germany, once poster kids for renewables, are admitting that wind and solar are sprinters, not marathon runners, when it comes to keeping the grid steady.

U.S. States Getting in on the Action

Here in the U.S., nuclear’s having a moment, but it’s not universal. Twelve states (like California) have restrictions on new nuclear builds, but others are forging ahead. Here’s the scoop on states with active plans:

• Wyoming:

  • Planning Stage: TerraPower’s Natrium reactor (a sodium-cooled SMR) is in licensing, with construction planned for 2026 and operation by 2030.

  • Baseload Goal: Wyoming’s energy mix is coal-heavy, so nuclear’s a bridge to 10–15% baseload by 2040, complementing wind.

• Tennessee:

  • Planning Stage: The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is applying for a construction permit for GE-Hitachi’s BWRX-300 SMR at Clinch River, targeting 2030 operation.

  • Baseload Goal: TVA wants nuclear to hit 20% of baseload by 2050, up from 10% today, to replace coal.

• Michigan:

  • Planning Stage: Holtec’s Palisades plant (800 MW, not an SMR) is set to restart in 2025 after shutting down in 2022. No new builds, but it’s a big recommission.

  • Baseload Goal: Michigan aims for 15% nuclear baseload by 2035, leaning on restarts over new plants.

• Virginia:

  • Planning Stage: Dominion Energy is exploring an SMR near North Anna, with feasibility studies underway but no firm timeline.

  • Baseload Goal: Virginia wants 10% nuclear baseload by 2050, balancing with solar.

Other states like Idaho (NuScale SMR plans) and Texas (X-energy SMR project) are in early stages but lack firm commitments. The DOE says 60–95 GW of new nuclear could be built at existing sites, so more states might join.

So…

First off, I don’t think solar and batteries are useless - they’re great for peaking power, remote areas, and as part of a portfolio of variable sources. But for baseload, they’re like trying to run a marathon on energy drinks. Nuclear’s the steady engine.

Clearly the nuclear comeback isn’t just a fad. It’s a thoughtful move by countries and states staring down a future of rising energy demand and climate goals. China’s building reactors like they’re Lego sets, Denmark’s ditching its nuclear ban, and even Germany’s easing up on its anti-nuclear crusade. States like Wyoming are betting on SMRs to ditch coal.

They’re not ignoring solar or batteries, but they know those can’t carry the grid alone. Nuclear’s not perfect, it’s expensive and takes time. But when you need power that doesn’t blink, it’s hard to beat.

So I might be wrong. But on this question check the construction cranes in Asia, the votes in Copenhagen, and the plans in Tennessee. My bet is they’re all making the smarter decision and Colorado is presently going the dumb route.⁴

1. The Colorado Energy Office is “open” to SMRs but that puts nuclear conveniently so far in the future, all power needs to be generated by VREs.

2. From World Nuclear Association & IAEA.

3. Much of India is in an optimal location for solar. Even so, it’s not 24/7.

4. To be fair, there is a slight chance the PUC & Xcel will go nuclear now. But the way they’re talking, the odds are very low.