The Next Generation of Nuclear Energy: Promise, Problems and Possibilities

Nuclear power is back on the table — pitched as the answer to soaring electricity demand from AI, data centers, and electrification. But is it actually a new era of nuclear energy, or the same old technology wearing a new marketing label?

We've assembled four panelists who will not agree with each other. (Full speaker bios below.) Here's what we're putting to them:

• Is nuclear technology different enough to change the debate? Smaller reactors, passive safety, factory manufacturing, new fuel cycles — does that add up to a genuinely new risk profile, or the same industry with better graphics?

• Does a safer reactor produce a safer nuclear system? Engineering aside, who operates it, who regulates it, who's trusted to respond when something goes wrong — and does better hardware actually change any of that?

• Can "new nuclear" compete on price? SMRs remain commercially immature, with real uncertainty around both cost and waste output. Can they deliver electricity at a price customers — including AI and data-center operators — will actually pay?

• Can existing regulatory systems govern a fundamentally different fleet? Rules built for a handful of giant, centralized reactors weren't designed for dozens or hundreds of smaller, factory-built units. Who decides where they go, who's liable if a manufacturer fails, and how are risks compared against the alternatives?

• Is this a new nuclear model, or a better-marketed version of the old one? South Korea's standardized build program and thorium/molten-salt designs are held up as proof the industry's cost problem was about how plants were built, not the technology itself. Does that case hold up?

• What actually determines whether nuclear's risks are worth it — engineering, economics, institutions, or public trust? And what happens when the four don't line up?

This is not a panel designed to reach consensus. Come ready to push back.