Last year at COP28, 25 countries, including the United States, vowed to triple global nuclear energy capacity by 2050. This week in New York City, 14 of the world’s largest banks kicked off Climate Week by pledging their support for the same goal. The growing support for nuclear power to meet growing energy needs and environmental goals is encouraging. But for nuclear to have an expanded role as a clean, affordable energy source, policymakers must address the government-imposed costs that inflate the price of nuclear and diminish its economic prospects. 

>>>READ: It’s Time for Congress to Capitalize on Nuclear Power’s Momentum

The benefits of nuclear power are well documented. It is a firm, “always on” source of electricity that is emissions-free and has a small environmental footprint. A uranium pellet the size of a piece of dog food contains the energy equivalent of one ton of coal. The spent fuel produced by nearly three-quarters of a century of operations can fit onto a single football field. That fuel, which is safely stored on-site with no accidents or radiation exposure, contains much of its energy and can be recycled or used by advanced reactor technologies. The worst nuclear incident in American history at Three Mile Island resulted in no fatalities, injuries or public health effects. After closing in 2019, the plant at the site that did not experience the accident will come back online to power Microsoft’s data centers.

Yet nuclear still has its fair share of critics who argue that it is unsafe, uneconomic, and takes too long to build. Data bears out that nuclear is one of the safest and cleanest forms of energy, but is it cost-competitive?  After all, families and businesses care deeply about low-cost, reliable electricity. Energy is a necessary input for almost everything we make and do. So when the cost of energy increases, so too do the prices for other goods and services, which hit household pocketbooks, increase mortality rates, and dampen economic growth. 

Nuclear power’s economic viability depends on a wide range of factors, including capital costs, fuel prices, construction timelines, and the cost of other forms of energy. While market forces should dictate which energy projects move forward, one cannot overlook the impact that government policy has had on all these variables. Burdensome, outdated, and duplicative regulations slow licensing and permitting for reactors and raise construction costs. 

Both Democrats and Republicans have recognized that fixing bad policy can make nuclear more competitive. In 2019, President Trump signed the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA) of 2019 which charged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to develop a new licensing framework for next-generation nuclear technologies. While that process got off to a rocky start, the NRC is now largely on the right path. Just months ago, President Joe Biden recently signed the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act into law. The ADVANCE Act includes provisions to modernize regulations, increase international collaboration, and reduce costs for investment and deployment. 

>>>READ: Italy’s Hopes for a Nuclear Renaissance

However, there is far more that policymakers can do. For instance, Congress should modernize radiation standards, develop a comprehensive spent fuel management program that empowers the private sector, and increase international collaboration to enhance American competitiveness. The American nuclear industry has exceptional talent, world-class research laboratories, and innovative reactor start-up companies. The U.S. should be a global leader in exporting nuclear around the world, rather than ceding that ground to Russia and China. 

On paper, it is great news for major financial institutions to pledge their support for expanding nuclear energy. Policymakers can do their part by addressing costly, ineffective regulations that stifle nuclear energy’s future so that it’s more appetizing for banks to cut the checks to finance them. 

Action speaks louder than pledges. If countries and financial institutions are to make good on their commitments to nuclear energy, bold policy reform is necessary.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of C3.