New Nuclear Is Too Late and Too Costly for the Climate Crisis

14 April 2026, Paul Dorfman, https://bennettinstitutesussex.org/stories/nuclear-is-too-late-and-too-costly-for-the-climate-crisis/

Dr Paul Dorfman, Bennett Scholar, makes a clear and evidence based case: new nuclear power cannot play a meaningful role in addressing the climate or energy crises. It is not simply expensive, it is structurally misaligned with the speed, scale and affordability required for effective climate action.

In the report, ‘Debt, Delays, Dependencies. Why Public Banks
Should Not Support Nuclear Power‘, Dr Dorfman’s contribution makes clear that new nuclear power represents a policy dead end, diverting scarce resources away from climate‑effective solutions. The opportunity cost is enormous: every pound invested in nuclear is a pound not invested in renewables, energy efficiency, storage or grid resilience. New nuclear is already too late. The renewable transition is happening now – and smart policy must move with it.

Key Findings

Dr Dorfman shows that time is the critical constraint. New nuclear projects consistently take 15–20 years from planning to operation, with average construction overruns of more than 60%. In contrast, wind and solar projects move from planning to generation in months to a few years, making them vastly more effective in the decisive decade for emissions reduction. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that renewables are now up to ten times more effective at cutting emissions than new nuclear, underscoring the urgency of choosing technologies that can deliver now rather than decades from now.

Cost compounds the problem. Dr Dorfman highlights that new nuclear is the most expensive form of electricity generation. Nuclear projects routinely double their initial cost estimates, while renewable technologies continue to fall rapidly in price due to economies of scale, innovation and fast global deployment.

The chapter also challenges the notion that nuclear complements renewables. Evidence shows that large, inflexible nuclear plants crowd out investment in grids, storage and flexibility – exactly the systems needed to integrate high shares of renewable energy. Meanwhile, renewables already deliver the bulk of new global power capacity, with wind and solar generating significantly more electricity than nuclear worldwide, and expanding at a far faster rate.

Finally, Dr Dorfman highlights a growing but under‑discussed risk: climate change itself threatens nuclear infrastructure. Rising sea levels, heatwaves, floods and water scarcity increasingly disrupt reactor operation, driving up costs and safety risks. Rather than being a climate solution, nuclear power is becoming more vulnerable because of climate impacts, further undermining its viability.

Why this matters for policy and innovation

Dr Dorfman’s chapter, ‘New nuclear: Too late and too costly for the climate and energy crises‘ has a central insight that aligns squarely with the Bennett Institute’s mission to accelerate effective, evidence‑based policy innovation. The persistence of nuclear in policy debates is not driven by outcomes, but by legacy thinking, political inertia and vested interests. Dr Dorfman’s analysis shows that innovation is not about new reactor designs, but about deploying solutions that already work, quickly, affordably and at scale. This research reinforces a core Bennett Institute principle: policy decisions must be grounded in real‑world delivery.