A nuclear plant is one of the cleanest ways to make huge amounts of electricity, 24/7. It’s also one of the hardest things humans build on purpose. And we’re not guessing. A 2025 study that tracked 662 energy infrastructure projects across 83 countries found that nuclear projects had the highest construction risk, with average cost overruns of 102.5% (roughly doubling vs the original plan). Boston University+1
That stat doesn’t mean “nuclear is bad.”
It means: nuclear is a megaproject that punishes mistakes.
The simplest example: Vogtle shows what the headache looks like
Plant Vogtle in Georgia is a modern case study because the timeline is public and the story is clean:
- Construction on the two newest reactors began in 2009. U.S. Energy Information Administration
- They were originally expected to cost $14 billion and enter service around 2016–2017. U.S. Energy Information Administration
- Instead, they took years longer and costs ballooned (AP reported the total project cost at about $35 billion when Unit 4 reached commercial operation). AP News+1
Again: not a “gotcha.” Just a real example of how nuclear builds can drift.
Why Nuclear is Such a Headache
1) You’re not just building a power plant. You’re building proof.
With nuclear, the paperwork is part of the product.
In the U.S., the NRC’s “combined license” process authorizes construction and conditional operation, but it’s tied to mountains of requirements, inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria along the way. Nuclear Regulatory Commission+1
Translation: it’s not “build it, then inspect it.”
It’s “prove every step while you build.”
2) Small defects become schedule killers
On a normal project, you can sometimes rework and move on.
On nuclear, rework can mean:
- ripping out work that’s already buried
- recertifying materials
- redoing documentation
- waiting for inspections to re-verify everything
That’s how “one issue” turns into months.
3) The supply chain is picky for a reason
A nuclear plant is full of components that need specialized manufacturing, traceability, and quality controls. If one supplier slips, you don’t just swap in a generic alternative.
And because these projects are rare, the supply chain is not always “warm.” You’re often rebuilding capability while trying to build the plant.
4) Even “simpler” nuclear still isn’t simple
SMRs are pitched as easier to build, but early projects show how hard it is to hit cost and schedule targets the first time.
NuScale’s first U.S. SMR project was canceled after projected costs rose, with reporting citing a projected cost of $89/MWh. E&E News by POLITICO+1
That’s not a verdict on SMRs. It’s a reminder: first of a kind anything is hard.
The Milestones That Matter
If you want to tell whether a nuclear project is “real” instead of just talk, watch for these practical steps:
- Licensing progress (actual filings accepted, actual approvals)
- Supplier selection (who’s building it, what design)
- First nuclear concrete (a real construction pivot point)
- Major module/component deliveries (pressure vessel, steam generators, etc.)
- Fuel load
- First criticality
- Grid synchronization
- Commercial operation
Those are the moments where the risk actually moves.
Why Sweden is in The News
Sweden’s Vattenfall applied for state aid to build SMRs at Ringhals, and Reuters reported Sweden’s program includes cost sharing, low interest loans, and price guarantees. Reuters+1
Not because Sweden is special, but because countries keep rediscovering the same truth:
Nuclear isn’t mainly a technology problem. It’s an execution problem.
