Nuclear Policy Development and Implementation

The Government of India is considering a significant legislative move that could reshape the country’s nuclear energy framework. On June 18, 2025, Minister of State for Atomic Energy, Dr. Jitendra Singh, indicated that the government may introduce amendment bills to the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010during the upcoming Monsoon Session of Parliament. This development follows the announcement made by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in the Union Budget earlier this year, where she outlined a ₹20,000 crore Nuclear Energy Mission, aimed at boosting domestic nuclear capacity and enabling private sector participation in the construction and development of nuclear reactors—particularly Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Despite the landmark 2008 India-U.S. Civil Nuclear Agreement, private and foreign investments in India’s nuclear sector have remained stalled. Two major legal bottlenecks have been identified: The Atomic Energy Act, which currently restricts ownership and operational rights of nuclear facilities to government entities. The CLND Act, which places expansive liability on suppliers in case of nuclear incidents, making participation unattractive for both Indian and international vendors. Strategic Importance: Amending these laws could be a pivotal step toward: Unlocking private investment and accelerating technology deployment, Attracting international collaboration in reactor development, Supporting India’s commitment to achieve 100 GW of nuclear power capacity by 2047, aligned with its Net Zero by 2070 pledge. Currently, nuclear power contributes only 1.6% to India’s total electricity generation. As the government aims to scale this significantly, legislative reform is essential for enabling market-driven growth in the nuclear sector. The Way Forward: If these amendments are introduced and passed, they will mark a decisive shift in India's nuclear policy—potentially catalyzing the next phase of clean, reliable, and base-load power development through nuclear energy. 📌 This moment calls for careful engagement from stakeholders across policy, industry, finance, and civil society to ensure the reforms balance safety, sustainability, and strategic growth.

🇫🇷☢️🏭 France built the world's most successful nuclear programme in two decades, achieving 75% nuclear electricity whilst most countries struggled with single reactors. The programme (58 reactors in total) delivered energy independence, industrial leadership, and low-carbon power through systematic execution of 10 core principles: 1️⃣ Strategic autonomy drove the initial decision. France sought escape from oil dependency after 1970s crises. Today's volatile gas markets create similar pressures for European energy security. 2️⃣ Centralised technical oversight came through elite institutions like CEA and Corps des Mines, ensuring coherent industrial execution. Modern equivalents could combine government expertise with private sector capability through close networks and structured partnerships. 3️⃣ A single, unified grid operator enabled streamlined execution. EDF managed the entire French electricity system, simplifying decision-making, coordination, and deployment of new nuclear plants. Cross-border coordination could achieve similar unified governance through EU-level or consortium-level structures. 4️⃣ Industrial champions like Framatome adapted imported PWR designs from America's Westinghouse into domestic manufacturing capacity. A European consortium could standardise reactor designs and establish mass production capability for both large reactors and small modular reactors (SMRs). 5️⃣ Standardisation, a cornerstone of successful manufacturing, accelerated construction and reduced costs through repeatable designs. Modern modular reactors with digital engineering could replicate this approach whilst improving safety and economics. 6️⃣ Fuel cycle control secured uranium enrichment and recycling capabilities. High-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) production and closed fuel cycles could provide similar sovereignty for advanced reactor deployment. 7️⃣ Long-term financing through state backing enabled decades-long projects. Public-private frameworks can provide equivalent stability whilst distributing risk appropriately. 8️⃣ Research integration linked R&D directly to industrial execution. Pan-European research consortia connected to manufacturers could accelerate technology development and deployment. 9️⃣ Political consensus supported the programme through multiple governments. Today requires transparent communication and clear benefits to maintain public support. 🔟 Export capability reinforced industrial strength and geopolitical influence. European reactor exports could strengthen technological sovereignty whilst supporting domestic industry. The challenge lies in contextual rationality: understanding what made France's programme work and applying those principles to today's different European context, rather than simply copying historical structures. A full history of the French civil nuclear programme, followed by detailed analysis of nuclear revival strategies, will soon be available as a 2-part series in Drift Signal.

“Make the maximum contribution to the general welfare.” — opening clause of the Atomic Energy Act. Building a new reactor is uniquely difficult in the U.S. due to its own self-imposed bureaucratic straight jacket. It takes an average 3.2 years to generate an environmental impact statement (#EIS) for a new reactor. There are then years of additional NRC hearings to officially license any project. None of these concern safety – safety inspections occur independently of this process and largely function as designed, lasting only months. Then, years of public hearings susceptible and often systematically captured by private interests further delays construction, forcing the U.S. to burn coal and natural gas instead of the #cleanatom. What was once introduced to prevent #government planners from running roughshod over communities has become a tool of privileged interests to block construction. The road to the U.S. meeting the current #energytransition opportunity runs directly through the U.S. #NRC. Unsurprisingly, as demand grows and new #technologies move from design to deployment, the NRC is ill-equipped to efficiently and effectively meet this moment.  Progress has been incremental and woefully insufficient in positioning the NRC to support the scale of advanced reactor deployment heading their way. While America is currently behind other countries, it can certainly catch up. However, this is only true if the U.S. government is willing to invest in a long term, stable and robust national nuclear energy strategy. NRC #leadership must focus the agency’s staff on efficient regulatory processes that are timely and right-sized for the next generation of simpler and inherently safer designs. #Regulatory efficiency must come first—adding staff to an inefficient process simply slows down the system even more. In short, the NRC cannot simply hire themselves to success. Given the current demand for new #nuclear, the processing of previously approved designs should be accomplished in less than a year. This approach would provide predictability and #efficiency for customers to have a clear line of sight from order to construction to deployment within three to five years.  This demand and urgency for new nuclear has not, however, penetrated the NRC mindset.   One of the key challenges is the NRC’s historical approach of ponderous reviews and decision-making. The United States is home to the highest performing and safest nuclear fleet in the world and safety must always be assured, but efficiency must be the order of the day. The current approach is sometimes justified by saying that the NRC has no responsibility for efficiency because it is not the NRC’s responsibility to be promotional under the Atomic Energy Act. This is a false premise. The #Atomicenergyact makes it very clear in the opening clause of its declaration that it is the policy of the United States that nuclear power “make the maximum contribution to the general #welfare.”

Large-Scale Nuclear or SMRs for the US? ⚛️ It’s the question people keep asking me. What do you think? Until recently, I leaned heavily toward SMRs. Not because they’d deliver cheaper electricity (we know modularity alone won’t bring the $/MWh down), but because they come with lower financial risk. Let’s face it: there aren’t many players in the US today willing to take on the massive financial burden of building a 1GW nuclear plant. The CAPEX is enormous, the timelines long, and the regulatory path complex. But things may change. 🚀 Over the past few months, we’ve seen serious momentum building for a nuclear renaissance in the US. ✅ Bipartisan support: Both the Biden and now the Trump administrations have shown strong backing for nuclear. ✅ AI power demand: Tech giants are turning to nuclear to power energy-hungry data centers. 🔌 Just recently, Google and startup Elementl announced a plan to build three nuclear power plants, each delivering at least 600 MW. But here’s the innovation: Google is not just buying the electricity through a PPA, it’s investing early-stage capital and taking on development risk. That’s a major shift. Then came last week’s a new strong governement’s support. President Trump signed four executive orders aimed at accelerating new nuclear deployement in the US: 1️⃣REINVIGORATING THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRIAL BASE: Speed up licensing, secure domestic fuel supply, and lay out a long-term nuclear strategy. 2️⃣DEPLOYING ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTOR TECHNOLOGIES FOR NATIONAL SECURITY: Fast-track SMRs and Gen III+ reactors on military bases and DOE facilities. 3️⃣ORDERING THE REFORM OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION: A major reform of the NRC’s culture and structure to make the licencing process faster and more innovation-friendly. 4️⃣REFORMING NUCLEAR REACTOR TESTING AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: Better use of national labs to support nuclear tech R&D. 👉 Up to now, all the talk was about SMRs or microreactors. But now I’m wondering: When you need a lot of clean, reliable power... and the technology is proven (just look at Vogtle 3 & 4)... Wouldn’t it make sense to build a full fleet of large-scale reactors using well-known designs? Turns out I’m not the only one thinking this way. The first executive order listed above explicitly sets a target of having 10 large reactors under construction by 2030. It’s bold, it’s ambitious… but it might just be the most realistic path forward. So what do you think? ➡️Will SMRs win the day because of their lower risk and modular approach? ➡️Or are we about to see the return of the gigawatt-scale reactor as the most scalable and cost-effective option? Let’s discuss 👇