In a notable policy alignment that bridges administrations, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm recently confirmed the Department of Energy’s loan office will substantially increase financing for nuclear power plants in 2025. This marks a significant continuity with Trump-era energy priorities while reflecting growing bipartisan consensus on nuclear power’s role in America’s energy future.
During a congressional hearing last week, Granholm told lawmakers that nuclear energy projects would receive “the lion’s share” of the department’s lending authority next year. “We are seeing tremendous interest in the next generation of nuclear technologies,” she said, highlighting applications representing over $100 billion in potential nuclear investments currently under review.
This pivot toward nuclear financing represents one of the more surprising policy consistencies between the Biden and Trump administrations. Former President Trump had championed nuclear energy throughout his term, signing bipartisan legislation in 2019 that streamlined regulatory approvals for advanced reactor designs. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has since approved designs from companies like NuScale Power, creating a pathway for the first new commercial reactors in decades.
The renewed emphasis on nuclear comes amid growing recognition of atomic energy’s unique advantages in providing zero-carbon baseload power. According to data from the Energy Information Administration, nuclear plants currently generate about 19% of America’s electricity while accounting for over half of its carbon-free generation. Unlike intermittent renewables, nuclear plants operate at approximately 92% capacity factor year-round regardless of weather conditions.
“Nuclear energy offers something neither solar, wind, nor natural gas can match – reliable, carbon-free electricity production 24/7/365,” said Dr. Kathryn Huff, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy at DOE, during an industry conference in Chicago last month. “The climate math simply doesn’t work without it.”
The loan program’s nuclear focus has attracted support from unlikely allies. Environmental groups that once opposed nuclear power, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, have modified their stance in recognition of climate priorities. “While challenges remain, particularly around waste management, modern reactor designs address many historical safety concerns,” noted Dr. Ashley Finan, director of the National Reactor Innovation Center, in a recent interview with EpochEdge.
Industry analysts see the DOE’s financial backing as crucial for overcoming nuclear’s greatest hurdle: upfront capital costs. Traditional large-scale nuclear plants can cost $10-15 billion, making financing prohibitively expensive without government support. However, a new generation of smaller modular reactors (SMRs) promises to reduce both costs and construction timelines.
X-energy, one beneficiary of DOE support, is developing 80-megawatt modular reactors designed for factory production and rapid deployment. The company’s CEO Jeff Navin told investors last quarter: “Federal loan guarantees dramatically improve our financing terms, potentially saving ratepayers hundreds of millions over the project lifetime.”
The financial commitment extends beyond traditional fission reactors. Commonwealth Fusion Systems, a MIT spinoff working on commercial fusion energy, secured a $50 million conditional commitment from the DOE last December. The technology, once considered perpetually decades away, has seen remarkable progress, with several private companies now projecting demonstration plants before 2030.
Congress has shown unusual bipartisan support for nuclear investments. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act included production tax credits for existing nuclear plants and new advanced reactors, while last year’s debt ceiling deal preserved the loan program’s lending authority despite broader spending cuts. Republican Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia have both championed nuclear energy as vital for their states’ economic futures.
Not everyone welcomes the nuclear renaissance. Some environmental activists remain skeptical, citing historical cost overruns and safety concerns. “The industry’s track record on project delivery is abysmal,” said Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “And while new designs promise improved safety, they remain largely untested.”
Economic concerns also persist. The last conventional nuclear project completed in the United States – Georgia Power’s Vogtle expansion – came in years late and billions over budget. Skeptics question whether even advanced designs can overcome the “nuclear cost curse” that has plagued the industry.
Nevertheless, market forces increasingly favor nuclear as natural gas prices fluctuate and grid reliability concerns mount. Several states facing electricity shortfalls have reversed plans to close existing nuclear plants, recognizing their irreplaceable role in maintaining grid stability during extreme weather events.
Having covered energy policy for nearly two decades, I’ve observed the nuclear debate evolve dramatically. The technology once vilified by environmentalists is increasingly viewed as essential for climate goals. As one senior DOE official confided to me after a recent off-record briefing: “We’re past the point of ideological luxury – we need every clean electron we can get.”
As the DOE aligns its financial muscle behind nuclear power, 2025 could mark the beginning of America’s nuclear revival – a rare point of policy continuity in an otherwise polarized energy landscape.
