Market insights from Warren Rushbrook, Gerard Daniels CEO
In December, while in London, I sat down with Tom Greatrex, Chief Executive of the UK Nuclear Industry Association and former UK Shadow Energy Minister.
Our discussion was not about advocating a particular policy position, nor about nuclear energy in Australia specifically. It focused instead on how energy systems are being reshaped by structural forces that are advancing more quickly than political debate often allows.
We explored the observation that artificial intelligence, cloud computing and the rapid expansion of data centres are driving a step change in energy demand. At the same time, governments are attempting to decarbonise, manage energy security and replace ageing coal and gas assets. These pressures are converging simultaneously, forcing a reassessment of how reliable and sustainable long-term power can realistically be delivered.
Across jurisdictions, this complexity has prompted a more pragmatic discussion about energy systems as a whole. Renewables continue to expand rapidly, supported by storage and transmission investment, but their inherent intermittency means system stability still depends on firm, dispatchable supply. This is not an ideological observation, but a technical reality that features consistently in system planning.
Australia’s experience adds an important dimension to this discussion.
Historically, the country has built much of its prosperity on energy-intensive industries including mining, minerals processing, metals, chemicals and large-scale infrastructure delivery. These sectors have underpinned export earnings, regional employment and sovereign capability for decades.
As global demand shifts towards data driven industries, electrified manufacturing and low carbon supply chains, the question is not whether Australia should replicate other jurisdictions, but whether it can afford to exclude proven sources of firm, scalable power from its long-term industrial policy considerations. This does not prescribe a single outcome, but it does suggest that nuclear and small modular reactors (SMRs) cannot be dismissed without consequence.
It is within this broader context that nuclear energy and SMRs are being reassessed globally. Not as standalone solutions, but as one component among several in diversified energy systems designed to deliver reliability, resilience and scale over multiple decades.
Depoliticising the debate so delivery can begin
A central theme of my recent conversation with Tom was the impact of politicisation on nuclear policy and delivery. Regardless of where one sits in the debate, turning nuclear into a short-term political dividing line is unhelpful for infrastructure that typically takes decades to plan, regulate, build and operate.
In the UK, while there are genuine differences of emphasis, all major political parties are broadly supportive of nuclear as part of a diverse future energy mix. That continuity has enabled delivery institutions to be established, supply chains to invest with greater confidence, and multiple projects to progress concurrently – from Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C through to the emerging SMR program.
Australia offers a contrasting example. Recent public debate positioned nuclear as a sharp political fault line, with sites named and timelines asserted, often without reference to regulatory readiness, workforce availability or delivery sequencing. Many experts engaged in the nuclear debate privately acknowledge that this framing compressed a complex, multi-decade undertaking into a campaign issue, reducing credibility rather than increasing clarity.
This distinction matters. Long-life energy infrastructure cannot be switched on and off with electoral cycles. Without durable policy settings, the cost of capital rises, supply chains hesitate to invest and workforce development stalls.
AI, energy security and observed market behaviour
The urgency of this discussion is reinforced by observable behaviour in the technology sector itself. As AI workloads expand, major technology companies are no longer treating energy as a procurement exercise. They are moving upstream into long-term capacity planning and, in some cases, direct ownership of energy infrastructure to secure reliable supply for data centres.
This shift highlights a broader reality. Energy demand driven by AI and digital infrastructure is no longer theoretical. It is already reshaping investment decisions, ownership models and the relationship between technology firms and energy systems.
A related consideration is competitiveness. As data centres and advanced digital infrastructure become increasingly mobile, decisions about where they locate are shaped not only by connectivity and regulation, but by access to reliable energy and water at scale. This is already evident across parts of Asia Pacific where rapid data centre growth is beginning to test grid capacity and water availability; and in the Middle East where large scale digital and industrial ambitions are being matched with deliberate investment in energy and utility security. In this context, energy and water security are emerging as core economic inputs rather than background assumptions.
For any region, the question is whether future policy settings can credibly support resource-intensive digital infrastructure while maintaining system resilience, affordability and community confidence. Where these conditions cannot be met, investment is likely to flow elsewhere, regardless of broader economic strengths.
Recent global experience has also underscored how exposed energy systems can be to disruption. Europe’s reliance on imported gas, hydropower variability and interconnector constraints have demonstrated how quickly supply security and pricing can be affected, reinforcing the importance of resilience, diversity and sovereign risk considerations in energy system design.
SMRs as part of a global system response
Against this backdrop, renewed interest in nuclear and SMRs becomes easier to understand. SMRs are being explored globally not only for grid supply, but for industrial clusters, data centres and emerging uses such as hydrogen production, where consistent, low carbon power is required over long time horizons.
This is not confined to Europe or North America. Dozens of SMR projects are planned, proposed or under active assessment across Asia Pacific, the Middle East and Eastern Europe. In many cases, these programs sit alongside continued investment in renewables, storage and transmission rather than replacing them.
A delivery and talent challenge
Ultimately, the question is not whether nuclear or SMRs are theoretically viable. It is whether countries can deliver them responsibly – a challenge that is as much about people as technology.
Nuclear programmes depend on mature regulation, governance, construction capability, operator competence and public trust. In several jurisdictions, the sector has contracted over time, meaning expertise has dispersed. Capability now needs to be reattracted, rebuilt and developed alongside new entrants.
As multiple regions pursue SMRs in parallel and AI accelerates demand for energy intensive infrastructure, competition for experienced leaders across engineering, safety, regulation and program delivery is intensifying. No single country can meet this need in isolation. Growing global talent pools and enabling cross sector mobility will be critical.
This is the lens through which nuclear is increasingly being viewed internationally. Less as a political argument and more as a test of long-term planning, institutional maturity and leadership in an increasingly complex energy system.
To connect with our network of global energy sector talent or discuss your future leadership needs, connect with Warren or reach out to your local Gerard Daniels team.
