🧃Nuclear’s Comeback Tour

Welcome to The Strawman, the daily climate newsletter. Today, we’re looking at the global push to keep aging nuclear power plants online, the reasons behind it, and the risks that come with reviving old technology.

Nuclear’s Midlife Crisis – Keep It or Scrap It?

Many of the world’s nuclear power plants were built in the ‘70s, ‘80s, and ‘90s, and are now approaching the end of their original 40-year lifespans. But instead of shutting them down, governments and energy companies are looking at ways to extend their use, sometimes by decades. Why? Because demand for electricity is skyrocketing, and replacing nuclear with renewables isn’t happening fast enough. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that electricity demand could more than double by 2050, driven by growing industries and energy-hungry data centers.

Extending the life of nuclear reactors is seen as a cheap and fast solution—cheaper than building new ones and often more reliable than intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar. Some plants are getting license renewals for up to 60 years, and discussions are underway about pushing them to 80 or even 100 years.

Old Reactors, New Tricks – The Push for Extended Lifespans

Countries like the U.S., France, and Japan are leading the charge to keep nuclear power going. In the U.S., government incentives have helped plants secure billions in funding to stay open. California’s Diablo Canyon, set to close in 2025, got a second wind thanks to a federal bailout. Meanwhile, tech giants like Microsoft are making deals to buy power from revived nuclear sites, ensuring a steady electricity supply for their data centers.

Even Japan, which famously shut down all its reactors after the Fukushima disaster, has slowly restarted several plants and is approving life extensions to 60 years or more. In France, where nuclear power is a cornerstone of the energy mix, the government is scrambling to extend old reactors to avoid losing half of its nuclear capacity by 2040.

But keeping these reactors running isn’t just about flipping a switch. Engineers have to inspect aging materials, monitor cracks in key components, and retrofit outdated systems. Some parts are no longer in production, making repairs an expensive and complex task.

Safety, Costs, and Politics – The Hurdles to Keeping Nuclear Alive

Reviving old reactors comes with serious challenges. Critics argue that many of these plants wouldn’t meet modern safety standards if they were built today. Age-related wear and tear increases the risk of failures, and extreme weather events caused by climate change—like heatwaves that limit cooling water supply—pose new threats.

On top of that, there’s the economic uncertainty. While nuclear extensions are cheaper than new builds, they still require hefty investments, and some energy markets don’t favor nuclear when renewables are flooding the grid with cheap electricity. Countries like Germany and Spain have decided to shut down nuclear entirely, despite energy concerns.

The question isn’t just whether we can extend the life of nuclear plants, but whether we should. Is holding on to aging technology a smart bridge to a cleaner future, or just delaying the inevitable?

Takeaway

Nuclear power might be getting a second wind, but keeping old reactors online is a balancing act between energy security, safety risks, and economic viability. Some governments see it as a necessary bridge to a cleaner future—others see it as a gamble. One thing’s for sure: with electricity demand soaring, we’ll need all the power we can get.