Financing was a central focus of the dialogue, particularly from the perspectives of policymakers and financiers. Participants stressed the importance of clarity regarding which organisation finances what activity, when in the nuclear supply chain development and what the drivers of such financing are. In this regard, participants discussed the need to address risk perception by the public alongside actual technical and financial risk.
Nuclear projects are characterised by high upfront costs, long timelines, and first-of-a-kind risks. As a result, participants emphasised the need for diversified financing structures combining government support with export credit agencies (ECAs), development banks, climate finance, philanthropy, and, in some cases, venture capital.[1] ECAs were highlighted as playing a critical role in reducing financial and political risk and enabling longer-term financing.
Venture capital was discussed as a complementary source of finance, particularly relevant for early-stage technologies and supply chain development, but insufficient on its own for large-scale deployment. Philanthropy could play a greater role to unlock financing to accelerate nuclear development to reduce energy poverty and mitigate climate change. It can be an important source of capital that is risk-tolerant and “patient” (not requiring immediate return on investment) which also supports critically enabling activities such as capacity building and public engagement.[2]
Discussions highlighted a growing distinction between least-cost and system-cost approaches to financing and technology selection. Least-cost approaches were described as focusing primarily on minimising upfront or project-level costs, often without fully accounting for grid integration, fuel security, reliability, or long-term workforce and supply-chain implications. By contrast, system-cost approaches assess total costs and benefits across the energy system over time, including resilience, security of supply, integration with variable renewables, and broader socioeconomic impacts. Participants noted that under such system-level assessments, nuclear power, despite higher upfront costs, can reduce overall system costs by providing firm capacity, lowering requirements for storage and backup, and simplifying grid operation when deployed as part of a diversified energy mix. This will depend on country-specific factors including the potential for renewable power generation and grid interconnectivity, as well as high degrees of uncertainty around the costs of SMRs and battery storage as these technologies develop[3].
Participants noted that, for many financiers, power generation remains the primary entry point for nuclear investment, given its clearer revenue models, system impacts, and role in energy security, even as non-power applications can strengthen supply chains and broaden development benefits. As a result, discussions emphasised the importance of presenting nuclear programmes through coherent and credible power-sector plans, supported by clear governance arrangements, regulatory preparedness, grid considerations, and workforce strategies. Participants stressed that effective messaging to financiers should focus on demonstrating readiness and delivery capacity, rather than ambition alone, and on articulating how nuclear projects contribute to energy security, affordability and long-term development. Early engagement with financiers was viewed as critical to shaping projects that are both bankable and aligned with national priorities.
[1] An export credit agency is a government-backed institution that enables exports by providing loans, guarantees, or insurance to reduce the financial and political risks of cross-border transactions.
Venture capital is high-risk equity financing provided to early-stage companies in exchange for ownership, with returns dependent on rapid growth and successful exit rather than guaranteed repayment.
[2] There is momentum for philanthropic support to nuclear energy with the Rockefeller Foundation commissions a report published in December 2025, the findings of which indicated that, under the right policy and regulatory conditions, nuclear power could play a more meaningful role in energy security, including delivering up to 30% of electricity generation and lowering system costs by up to 31% by 2050, compared to renewables-only pathways. See Dr. Aman Majid, Dr. Mark Hammond and Richard Ollington, “The Role of Nuclear Energy in Powering Universal Energy Abundance for Emerging Economies”, Rockefeller Foundation, 3 December 2025. Available at : https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/reports/the-role-of-nuclear-energy-in-powering-universal-energy-abundance-for-emerging-economies/.
[3] See recent energy system modelling and analysis of SMR deployment in LMICs by Climate Compatible Growth: https://www.cambridge.org/engage/coe/article-details/696e0dd53df23a9b538e19c1