Facing a critical crossroads, emerging economies worldwide are striving to achieve a delicate balance: expanding energy access, fueling economic growth, and meeting ambitious climate targets. But how can they achieve all of this simultaneously? Once hailed as a cornerstone of clean energy, nuclear power faded from the development agenda due to cost overruns and lengthy construction timelines in high-income countries. But a new analysis suggests it's time to reconsider.
Our research, focusing on eight emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) – Brazil, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, the Philippines, Rwanda, and South Africa – reveals a compelling truth: integrating nuclear power into clean energy transitions can slash total system costs by 2-31% compared to relying solely on renewable sources.
Let's break down the numbers:
Deploying nuclear power dramatically reduces the infrastructure needed. This means:
- Less solar capacity
- Less energy storage
- Less transmission infrastructure
This isn't just a minor adjustment; it translates to billions of dollars in saved costs and a quicker path to energy abundance.
The High Cost of Renewables-Only Systems
While solar and wind power have become remarkably affordable, relying exclusively on them poses a challenge. When renewables supply over 80% of electricity, systems must be significantly overbuilt to ensure reliability during periods of low wind and sunlight. This overbuilding sharply increases costs.
Our detailed power system modeling from 2025 to 2050 demonstrates that incorporating nuclear capacity reduces the need to overbuild these expensive components. This results in system cost reductions ranging from 2% in Brazil (which has substantial existing hydropower) to 31% in Rwanda (which has very limited renewable options beyond solar).
Nuclear: A Complement, Not a Competitor
The modeling highlights a crucial insight: nuclear and renewables work best together. In all scenarios where nuclear deployment was permitted, nuclear power accounted for 10-30% of generation by 2050 in cost-optimal pathways, while solar and wind continued to dominate the overall generation mix.
This synergy arises from the different roles each technology plays. Solar provides cheap daytime power; wind adds variability and geographic diversity; and nuclear offers firm, dispatchable generation that reduces storage requirements and smooths daily dispatch patterns. We also considered other baseload technologies like geothermal and hydropower, and found that nuclear works especially well in areas where these two are not geographically or geologically feasible. Together, they create more resilient systems than any single technology could provide.
When Ambition Scales, Nuclear's Value Grows Even More
Our main analysis assumes countries reach at least a “Modern Energy Minimum” of 1,000 kilowatt-hours per person per year by 2050. But what happens when countries aim for genuine energy abundance to power large-scale industrialization?
A case study of Ghana illustrates nuclear’s role when ambitions scale dramatically. Rather than modest growth to the minimum threshold, this scenario models Ghana reaching 3,500 kWh per capita by 2050, which is comparable to India’s projected demand.
To meet this fourfold increase in demand with renewables alone, Ghana would need to build more than 300 gigawatts of generation capacity, 40 GW of storage, and 50 GW of transmission by 2050. The nuclear pathway delivers the same power requirements with a far smaller system: roughly 60 GW of generation, 10 GW of storage, and 30 GW of transmission.
The Ghana case reveals a crucial principle: nuclear’s value proposition strengthens as energy ambitions grow. For countries serious about rapid industrialization and moving up the value chain, firm low-carbon power isn’t just cost-effective; it may be essential to making the infrastructure buildout achievable at all, given land, finance, and supply chain constraints.
Benefits Beyond the Balance Sheet
Lower electricity costs are crucial for development, but nuclear energy offers additional advantages that modeling alone cannot fully capture.
Nuclear plants create more numerous, higher-paid, and longer-lasting jobs than other clean energy technologies, with roughly half of coal plant jobs directly transferable to nuclear facilities. For countries like South Africa looking to transition away from coal, this represents a genuine pathway to a just transition that doesn’t abandon workers.
The Road Ahead: Overcoming Obstacles
If nuclear power offers such clear benefits, why hasn't deployment accelerated in EMDEs? The barriers are significant and varied.
Expert interviews identified three critical challenges: government capacity and effectiveness, public engagement and acceptance, and nuclear project financing.
A key point to consider: Nuclear power is particularly sensitive to the cost of capital due to long construction periods and high upfront costs relative to later operational expenses.
However, recent experience shows these barriers can be overcome. Since 2000, eight countries have started to build or successfully built their first nuclear plants, with the UAE achieving 23% nuclear generation after 16 years. Each selected proven reactor designs, secured international partnerships for financing and expertise, and built government-led programs with sustained political support.
A Role for Catalytic Support
The most effective nuclear deployments will require support beyond what market forces or national governments can provide alone. This is where international cooperation and strategic philanthropy can play catalytic roles.
The need is urgent. While nuclear energy accounts for 20% of global clean electricity generation, it receives less than 0.2% of climate philanthropy, which is a striking imbalance given nuclear’s proven role in decarbonization.
Time to Act
The modeling makes clear that the cost savings from nuclear energy emerge primarily in the final phase of decarbonization (after 2040 in most modelled countries). But construction timelines mean that planning and building must begin decades earlier, well before market signals alone would trigger investment.
Countries don’t need to choose between economic growth and climate action, or between energy access and environmental protection. With the right technology mix, supportive policies, and strategic investment, emerging economies can achieve energy abundance while building cleaner, more resilient power systems.
The window for action is now. Every year of delay makes the final phase of decarbonization more expensive and more difficult. For countries serious about universal energy access and climate commitments, nuclear power deserves a prominent place in the conversation.
This analysis is based on research by Bayesian Energy in collaboration with Radiant Energy Group, commissioned by The Rockefeller Foundation. The study used detailed power system modeling to evaluate cost-optimal pathways for eight emerging market and developing economies through 2050.
What are your thoughts? Do you agree that nuclear power has a role to play in the future of clean energy, or do you have reservations? Share your opinions in the comments below!
